↓ Skip to main content

Sexual counselling for sexual problems in patients with cardiovascular disease

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
13 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
188 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Sexual counselling for sexual problems in patients with cardiovascular disease
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010988.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Molly Byrne, Sally Doherty, Bengt GA Fridlund, Jan Mårtensson, Elaine E Steinke, Tiny Jaarsma, Declan Devane

Abstract

Sexual problems are common among people with cardiovascular disease. Although clinical guidelines recommend sexual counselling for patients and their partners, there is little evidence on its effectiveness. To evaluate the effectiveness of sexual counselling interventions (in comparison to usual care) on sexuality-related outcomes in patients with cardiovascular disease and their partners. We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and three other databases up to 2 March 2015 and two trials registers up to 3 February 2016. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs, including individual and cluster RCTs. We included studies that compared any intervention to counsel adult cardiac patients about sexual problems with usual care. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We included three trials with 381 participants. We were unable to pool the data from the included studies due to the differences in interventions used; therefore we synthesised the trial findings narratively.Two trials were conducted in the USA and one was undertaken in Israel. All trials included participants who were admitted to hospital with myocardial infarction (MI), and one trial also included participants who had undergone coronary artery bypass grafting. All trials followed up participants for a minimum of three months post-intervention; the longest follow-up timepoint was five months.One trial (N = 92) tested an intensive (total five hours) psychotherapeutic sexual counselling intervention delivered by a sexual therapist. One trial (N = 115) used a 15-minute educational video plus written material on resuming sexual activity following a MI. One trial (N = 174) tested the addition of a component that focused on resumption of sexual activity following a MI within a hospital cardiac rehabilitation programme.The quality of the evidence for all outcomes was very low.None of the included studies reported any outcomes from partners.Two trials reported sexual function. One trial compared intervention and control groups on 12 separate sexual function subscales and used a repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) test. They reported statistically significant differences in favour of the intervention. One trial compared intervention and control groups using a repeated measures analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), and concluded: "There were no significant differences between the two groups [for sexual function] at any of the time points".Two trials reported sexual satisfaction. In one trial, the authors compared sexual satisfaction between intervention and control and used a repeated measured ANOVA; they reported "differences were reported in favour of the intervention". One trial compared intervention and control with a repeated measures ANCOVA and reported: "There were no significant differences between the two groups [for sexual satisfaction] at any of the timepoints".All three included trials reported the number of patients returning to sexual activity following MI. One trial found some evidence of an effect of sexual counselling on reported rate of return to sexual activity (yes/no) at four months after completion of the intervention (relative risk (RR) 1.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.26 to 2.32; one trial, 92 participants, very low quality of evidence). Two trials found no evidence of an effect of sexual counselling on rate of return to sexual activity at 12 week (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.09; one trial, 127 participants, very low quality of evidence) and three month follow-up (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.10; one trial, 115 participants, very low quality of evidence).Two trials reported psychological well-being. In one trial, no scores were reported, but the trial authors stated: "No treatment effects were observed on state anxiety as measured in three points in time". In the other trial no scores were reported but, based on results of a repeated measures ANCOVA to compare intervention and control groups, the trial authors stated: "The experimental group had significantly greater anxiety at one month post MI". They also reported: "There were no significant differences between the two groups [for anxiety] at any other time points".One trial reporting relationship satisfaction and one trial reporting quality of life found no differences between intervention and control.No trial reported on satisfaction in how sexual issues were addressed in cardiac rehabilitation services. We found no high quality evidence to support the effectiveness of sexual counselling for sexual problems in patients with cardiovascular disease. There is a clear need for robust, methodologically rigorous, adequately powered RCTs to test the effectiveness of sexual counselling interventions for people with cardiovascular disease and their partners.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 188 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 1%
Unknown 186 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 35 19%
Student > Bachelor 27 14%
Student > Postgraduate 20 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 10%
Researcher 18 10%
Other 34 18%
Unknown 35 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 49 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 35 19%
Psychology 19 10%
Social Sciences 13 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 4%
Other 21 11%
Unknown 44 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 April 2019.
All research outputs
#2,722,494
of 14,679,099 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,550
of 11,037 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#59,662
of 265,491 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#101
of 189 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,679,099 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,037 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.4. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 265,491 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 189 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.