Objective We studied patients’ experiences with oncology providers regarding communication about sexual issues during and after treatment for cancer. Methods During development of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®) Sexual Function measure, we collected focus group and survey data on communication with oncology professionals about sexual problems. We conducted 16 focus groups with patients and survivors (n = 109) and analyzed the discussions for major themes, including experiences discussing sex during oncology visits. During testing of the PROMIS Sexual Function measure, we assessed experiences discussing sexual problems with oncology professionals (n = 819) and measured bivariate associations between asking for information from clinicians and sexual function and satisfaction with sex life. Results Most patients and survivors (74%) thought discussions with oncology professionals about sexual problems were important, but whether they had ever received information about sexual function from a provider varied by cancer type (23% lung, 29% breast, 39% colorectal, and 79% prostate). Those who had asked an oncology professional about sexual problems had significantly greater interest in sexual activity as well as more sexual dysfunction. Conclusions Sexual problems are a widespread concern among patients and survivors, but there is much variation in experiences of communication about sexual issues and many patients do not receive the information they need from their oncology providers. There are large differences in sexual function between patients who do and do not ask providers about sexual problems. Sexual health has yet to be fully integrated into oncology care, even for cancers involving sex organs.

Introduction The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS)® Sexual Function and Satisfaction measure (SexFS) version 1.0 was developed with cancer populations. There is a need to expand the SexFS and provide evidence of its validity in diverse populations. Aim The aim of this study was to describe the development of the SexFS v2.0 and present preliminary evidence for its validity. Methods Development built on version 1.0, plus additional review of extant items, discussions with 15 clinical experts, 11 patient focus groups (including individuals with diabetes, heart disease, anxiety, depression, and/or are lesbian, gay, bisexual, or aged 65 or older), 48 cognitive interviews, and psychometric evaluation in a random sample of U.S. adults plus an oversample for specific sexual problems (2281 men, 1686 women). We examined differential item functioning (DIF) by gender and sexual activity. We examined convergent and known-groups validity. Results The final set of domains includes 11 scored scales (interest in sexual activity, lubrication, vaginal discomfort, clitoral discomfort, labial discomfort, erectile function, orgasm ability, orgasm pleasure, oral dryness, oral discomfort, satisfaction), and six nonscored item pools (screeners, sexual activities, anal discomfort, therapeutic aids, factors interfering with sexual satisfaction, bother). Domains from version 1.0 were reevaluated and improved. Domains considered applicable across gender and sexual activity status, namely interest, orgasm, and satisfaction, were found to have significant DIF. We identified subsets of items in each domain that provided consistent measurement across these important respondent groups. Convergent and known-groups validity was supported. Conclusions The SexFS version 2.0 has several improvements and enhancements over version 1.0 and other extant measures, including expanded evidence for validity, scores centered around norms for sexually active U.S. adults, new domains, and a final set of items applicable for both men and women and those sexually active with a partner and without. The SexFS is customizable, allowing users to select relevant domains and items for their study.

Introduction We describe the development and validation of the PROMIS Sexual Function and Satisfaction (PROMIS SexFS) measures version 1.0 for cancer populations. Aim To develop a customizable self-report measure of sexual function and satisfaction as part of the U.S. National Institutes of Health PROMIS® Network. Methods Our multidisciplinary working group followed a comprehensive protocol for developing psychometrically robust patient reported outcome (PRO) measures including qualitative (scale development) and quantitative (psychometric evaluation) development. We performed an extensive literature review, conducted 16 focus groups with cancer patients and multiple discussions with clinicians, and evaluated candidate items in cognitive testing with patients. We administered items to 819 cancer patients. Items were calibrated using item response theory and evaluated for reliability and validity. Main Outcome Measures The PROMIS Sexual Function and Satisfaction (PROMIS SexFS) measures version 1.0 include 79 items in 11 domains: interest in sexual activity, lubrication, vaginal discomfort, erectile function, global satisfaction with sex life, orgasm, anal discomfort, therapeutic aids, sexual activities, interfering factors, and screener questions. Results In addition to content validity (patients indicate that items cover important aspects of their experiences) and face validity (patients indicate that items measure sexual function and satisfaction), the measure shows evidence for discriminant validity (domains discriminate between groups expected to be different), convergent validity (strong correlations between scores on PROMIS and scores on conceptually-similar older measures of sexual function), as well as favorable test-retest reliability among people not expected to change (inter-class correlations from 2 administrations of the instrument, 1 month apart). Conclusions The PROMIS SexFS offers researchers a reliable and valid set of tools to measure self-reported sexual function and satisfaction among diverse men and women. The measures are customizable; researchers can select the relevant domains and items comprising those domains for their study.

No abstract

No abstract

Purpose Federal regulations and best practice guidelines identify categories of information that should be communicated to prospective biobank participants during the informed consent process. However, uncertainty remains about which of this information participants must understand to provide valid consent. Methods We conducted a Delphi process to define “adequate comprehension” in the context of biobanking consent. The process involved an iterative series of 3 online surveys of a diverse panel of 51 experts, including genome scientists, biobank managers, ethics and policy experts, and community and participant representatives. We sought consensus (greater than 70% agreement) concerning what specific details participants should know about 16 biobank consent topics. Results Consensus was achieved for 15 of the 16 consent topics. The exception was the comprehension needed regarding the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act. Conclusions Our Delphi process was successful in identifying a concise set of key points that prospective participants must grasp to provide valid consent for biobanking. Specifying the level of knowledge sufficient for individuals to make an informed choice provides a basis for improving consent forms and processes, as well as an absolute metric for assessing the effectiveness of other interventions to improve comprehension.

PurposeTo determine the individual and combined effects of a simplified form and a review/retest intervention on biobanking consent comprehension.MethodsA national online survey in which participants were randomized within four educational strata to review a simplified or traditional consent form. Participants completed a comprehension quiz after which, for each item answered incorrectly, they reviewed the corresponding consent form section and answered another quiz item on that topic.ResultsConsistent with our first hypothesis, comprehension among those who received the simplified form was not inferior to those who received the traditional form. Contrary to expectations, receipt of the simplified form did not result in significantly better comprehension compared to the traditional form among those in the lowest educational group. The review/retest procedure significantly improved quiz scores in every combination of consent form and education level. Although improved, comprehension remained a challenge in the lowest education group. Higher quiz scores were significantly associated with willingness to participate.ConclusionEnsuring consent comprehension remains a challenge, but simplified forms have virtues independent of their impact on understanding. A review/retest intervention may have a significant effect, but assessing comprehension raises complex questions about setting thresholds for understanding and consequences of not meeting them.

Research institutions differ in their willingness to defer to a single, central institutional review board (IRB) for multicenter clinical trials, despite statements from the FDA, OHRP, and NIH in support of using central IRBs to improve the efficiency of conducting trials. The Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative (CTTI) supported this project to solicit current perceptions of barriers to the use of central IRBs and to formulate potential solutions. We held discussions with IRB experts, interviewed representatives of research institutions, and held an expert meeting with diverse stakeholder groups and thought leaders. We found that many perceived barriers relate to conflating responsibilities of the institution with the ethical review responsibilities of the IRB. We identified the need for concrete tools to help research institutions separate institutional responsibilities from ethical responsibilities required of the IRB. One such tool is a document we created that delineates these responsibilities and how they might be assigned to each entity, or, in some cases, both entities. This tool and project recommendations will be broadly disseminated to facilitate the use of central IRBs in multicenter trials. The ultimate goal is to increase the nation’s capacity to efficiently conduct the large number of high-quality trials.