TY - JOUR
T1 - Development and Validation of a Single-Item Screener for Self-Reporting Sexual Problems in U.S. Adults
AU - Flynn, Kathryn E.
AU - Lindau, Stacy Tessler
AU - Lin, Li
AU - Reese, Jennifer Barsky
AU - Jeffery, Diana D.
AU - Carter, Jeanne
AU - Baron, Shirley R.
AU - Abramsohn, Emily
AU - Weinfurt, Kevin P.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2015, Society of General Internal Medicine.
PY - 2015/10/29
Y1 - 2015/10/29
N2 - Background: Brief self-assessment of sexual problems in a clinical context has the potential to improve care for patients through the ability to track trends in sexual problems over time and facilitate patient–provider communication about this important topic. However, instruments designed for research are typically too long to be practical in clinical practice. Objective: To develop and validate a single-item self-report clinical screener that would capture common sexual problems and concerns for men and women. Design: We created three candidate screener items, refined them through cognitive interviews, and administered them to a large sample. We compared the prevalence of responses to each item and explored the discrepancies between items. We evaluated the construct validity of the items by comparing them to scores on the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System® Sexual Function and Satisfaction (PROMIS® SexFS) measure. Participants: Local patients participated in two rounds of cognitive interviews (n = 7 and n = 11). A probability-based random sample of U.S. adults comprised the item-testing sample (n = 3517). Main Measures: The items were as follows: 1) a yes/no item on any sexual problems or concerns (“general screener”), 2) a yes/no item on problems experienced for 3 months or more during the past 12 months, with a list of examples (“long list screener”), and 3) an item identical to the long list screener except that examples appeared individually as response options and respondents could check all that applied (“checklist screener”). Key Results: All of the screeners tested showed evidence for basic validity and had minimal missing data. Percentages of women and men endorsing the screeners were 10 % and 15 % (general); 20 % and 17 % (long list); and 38 % and 30 % (checklist), respectively. Participants who endorsed the screeners had lower function compared to those who did not endorse them. Conclusions: We recommend the checklist screener for its specificity and ability to identify specific problems associated with decreased sexual function.
AB - Background: Brief self-assessment of sexual problems in a clinical context has the potential to improve care for patients through the ability to track trends in sexual problems over time and facilitate patient–provider communication about this important topic. However, instruments designed for research are typically too long to be practical in clinical practice. Objective: To develop and validate a single-item self-report clinical screener that would capture common sexual problems and concerns for men and women. Design: We created three candidate screener items, refined them through cognitive interviews, and administered them to a large sample. We compared the prevalence of responses to each item and explored the discrepancies between items. We evaluated the construct validity of the items by comparing them to scores on the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System® Sexual Function and Satisfaction (PROMIS® SexFS) measure. Participants: Local patients participated in two rounds of cognitive interviews (n = 7 and n = 11). A probability-based random sample of U.S. adults comprised the item-testing sample (n = 3517). Main Measures: The items were as follows: 1) a yes/no item on any sexual problems or concerns (“general screener”), 2) a yes/no item on problems experienced for 3 months or more during the past 12 months, with a list of examples (“long list screener”), and 3) an item identical to the long list screener except that examples appeared individually as response options and respondents could check all that applied (“checklist screener”). Key Results: All of the screeners tested showed evidence for basic validity and had minimal missing data. Percentages of women and men endorsing the screeners were 10 % and 15 % (general); 20 % and 17 % (long list); and 38 % and 30 % (checklist), respectively. Participants who endorsed the screeners had lower function compared to those who did not endorse them. Conclusions: We recommend the checklist screener for its specificity and ability to identify specific problems associated with decreased sexual function.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84942501374&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - https://www.webofscience.com/api/gateway?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=purepublist2023&SrcAuth=WosAPI&KeyUT=WOS:000361755000022&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=WOS
U2 - 10.1007/s11606-015-3333-3
DO - 10.1007/s11606-015-3333-3
M3 - Article
C2 - 25893421
SN - 0884-8734
VL - 30
SP - 1468
EP - 1475
JO - Journal of General Internal Medicine
JF - Journal of General Internal Medicine
IS - 10
ER -