Dyadic Latent Profiles of Sexual and Reproductive Distress in Young Adult Cancer Survivors and Their Partners: A Cross-Sectional Analysis.
In a cross-sectional latent profile analysis of 79 young adult breast or gynecologic cancer survivor–partner dyads, the study identified low-, moderate-, and high-SRH-distress profiles associated with differing levels of dyadic coping, communication, open discussion, and sexual activity.
Open original publication →What the AI sees
In a cross-sectional latent profile analysis of 79 young adult breast or gynecologic cancer survivor–partner dyads, the study identified low-, moderate-, and high-SRH-distress profiles associated with differing levels of dyadic coping, communication, open discussion, and sexual activity.
Research significance
The observed associations support the inference—not a demonstrated treatment effect—that couple-focused interventions targeting communication, dyadic coping, and discussion of sexual and reproductive health concerns could reduce distress or help identify dyads needing tailored support.
Source abstract
BACKGROUND: Young adult (YA) breast and gynecologic cancer (BGC) survivors commonly experience sexual and reproductive health (SRH) distress after cancer, with far-reaching consequences for relational functioning, health outcomes, and quality of life. Despite this burden, the dyadic experience and relational patterns of SRH distress in this population have not been well characterized. AIMS: The objectives of this study were to characterize dyadic profiles of SRH distress and to examine the association with other individual and interpersonal characteristics. METHODS: This study employed dyadic Latent Profile Analysis (LPA) in STATA/SE to identify distinct SRH distress profiles across 79 survivor-partner couples, with measures of reproductive and sexual distress as LPA indicators. Following profile identification, we used ANOVA and chi-square tests to examine how these dyadic profiles differed across characteristics. RESULTS: Three dyadic profiles emerged: low-distress (30.4%), moderate-distress (43.0%), and high-distress (26.6%). Low-distress couples had significantly higher levels of dyadic coping, constructive communication, and open discussion of SRH concerns along with the highest rates of sexual activity. In contrast, high-distress couples demonstrated poorer coping and communication and significantly lower sexual activity. Moderate-distress dyads fell between these extremes. Comparisons across these profiles showed no significant differences in demographic or cancer characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: Findings underscore the central role of relationship processes, including dyadic coping and communication, and their potential as modifiable intervention targets for YA BGC survivor couples experiencing SRH distress. Identifying distinct couples' profiles of SRH distress may facilitate more precise identification of high-need dyads and guide the development of tailored interventions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04806724.