Cited by 15Childhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of LifeCancer survivorship and careSexual function and dysfunction studies

Evaluation of the v2.0 brief profiles for sexual function and satisfaction PROMIS in adolescent and young adult childhood cancer survivors

Open access
Sopfe, Jenna, Marsh, Rebekah, Ziniel, Sonja I., Klosky, James L., Chow, Eric J., Dorsey Holliman, Brooke, Peterson, Pamela N.·2021·Journal of Adolescent and Young Adult Oncology

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Background: Sexual dysfunction (SD) is a common but often unrecognized potential late effect among childhood cancer survivors (CCS). Unfortunately, both patients and providers report low levels of routine screening and identify multiple barriers, including lack of knowledge, discomfort, and limited time, particularly among CCS who are adolescent or young adult aged (AYA-CCS). One potential way to increase screening, detection and treatment for SD among AYA-CCS is to employ patient-reported outcomes measures. While adult screening tools exist, no SD screening tool has been evaluated specifically among this younger population. Procedure: This qualitative study used Think-Aloud and cognitive interviewing methods to obtain feedback from AYA-CCS on acceptability, usefulness, and validity of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System® (PROMIS®) v2.0 Brief Profiles for Sexual Function and Satisfaction (SexFS Brief) in CCS now aged 15-24 years. Results: The SexFS Brief demonstrated acceptability, response process and content validity, and usefulness among AYA-CCS. There were no detectable differences by age or gender. This study did not reveal any necessary modifications to the SexFS Brief for this population. Conclusions: The PROMIS SexFS Brief is an acceptable and useful tool, with demonstrated response-process and content validity, and may facilitate improved screening and diagnosis of SD among AYA-CCS. Further, this tool was viewed favorably by AYA-CCS as a way to reduce barriers such as discomfort and lack of knowledge on the part of patients. Further evaluation of its effectiveness and acceptability in a clinical setting are warranted.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1089/jayao.2020.0166

Cites

36 of 36 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 38 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Arnett JJ. Emerging adulthood : the winding road from the late teens through the twenties. New York ; Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2004.
  2. Posted on Authorea 11 Sep 2020 -The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. -https://doi.org/10.22541/au.159985354.44719412 -This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. · DOI
  3. Tourangeau R, Rips LJ, Rasinski KA. The psychology of survey response. Cambridge, U.K. ; New York: Cambridge University Press; 2000.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sopfe, J., Marsh, R., Ziniel, S. I., Klosky, J. L., Chow, E. J., Dorsey Holliman, B., & Peterson, P. N.
Affiliations
  • University of Colorado Anschutz (US)
  • Emory University (US)
  • Fred Hutch Cancer Center (US)
  • Adult & Child Consortium for Health Outcomes Research & Delivery Science (ACCORDS), University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado, USA.
  • Denver Health Medical Center (US)
Corresponding author
Sopfe, Jenna
Venue
Journal of Adolescent and Young Adult Oncology
Published
2021-08-01
Volume
10
Issue
4
Pages
418-424
ISSN
  • 2156-5333 (ISSN-L)
  • 2156-535X
OpenAlex
W3095670432
Cited by
15
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 1
FWCI
1.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Adolescent and Young Adult Oncology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Pediatric Cancer Research Foundation
  • Cancer Center, University of Colorado
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Childhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Sexual function and dysfunction studies
Keywords
sexual dysfunction, childhood cancer survivors, adolescent and young adult cancer survivors, PROMIS, sexual function, sexual satisfaction, patient-reported outcomes, sexual dysfunction screening, acceptability, cognitive interviewing, think-aloud
MeSH terms
Patient Reported Outcome Measures, Cancer Survivors, Adolescent, Child, Humans, Neoplasms, Personal Satisfaction, Sexual Dysfunction, Physiological, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review