In different stages of the study, 40 out of 3,250 articles were removed due to duplication. Also, 3100 other articles were excluded due to the following reasons: 1) being unrelated to the study objectives; and 2) performing no intervention affecting the variables. In the third stage, 110 studies were excluded, and 3 articles were found, based on the reference check. In the fourth stage, the full-text of 113 articles was read, and 99 articles were excluded. Finally, 14 articles were included in our systematic review and meta-analysis.
The articles, published between 2006 and 2016, were classified into “sexual satisfaction” and “sexual function”. The samples were collected from women with breast cancer (age range, 18 - 65 years) during 2011 - 2013. Regarding sexual satisfaction, the intervention and control groups included 376 and 430 subjects, respectively. Among 6 articles related to sexual satisfaction, two had a quasi-experimental design, while 4 articles were randomized controlled trials. The randomization method was applied in all studies for the allocation of patients to the control and intervention groups. Sexual interventions for sexual satisfaction consisted of group counseling, peer support, group support, skill training programs, and psychological sex education. The interventions continued for 1 to 12 weeks.
Regarding sexual function, the intervention and control groups consisted of 665 and 666 women, respectively. Among 8 articles related to sexual function, four had a quasi-experimental design, while 4 articles had a randomized controlled design. Also, the randomization method was used for the allocation of samples to the groups. The intervention programs consisted of group counseling, peer group, relaxation, telephone support, group support, skill training programs, and sex education programs. Also, the sexual function questionnaires were used for data collection in all studies.
Among the selected articles, six examined the effects of educational interventions on sexual satisfaction among women with breast cancer. The total sample size included 376 and 430 women in the intervention and control groups, respectively. In 3 studies, the mean of changes in sexual satisfaction was higher in the intervention group, compared to the controls, and the difference was statistically significant.
There were heterogeneities between the results of retrieved articles (I-square, 90.9%; Q, 55.2; P < 0.05). Therefore, the random effects model was used to estimate the standardized mean differences of sexual satisfaction scores. The standardized mean difference of sexual satisfaction between the intervention and control groups was -0.03 (95% CI, -0.55 - 0.49). In fact, the score of sexual satisfaction in the intervention group was -0.03 lower than that of the control group; however, the difference was not statistically significant (
Figure 2).
The Standardized Mean Difference of Sexual Satisfaction Between the Intervention and Control Groups
Eight studies examined the effect of education on sexual function in women with breast cancer. The population of the intervention and control groups included 665 and 666 women, respectively. Five studies reported greater mean changes in sexual function in the intervention group; nonetheless, only 1 study showed a significance change.
There were heterogeneities between the studies (I-square, 92.4%; Q, 92.6; P < 0.01). Therefore, the random effects model was used to estimate the standardized mean differences of sexual function scores. The standardized mean difference of sexual function score was 0.14 between the intervention and control groups (95% CI, -0.28 - 0.57). Accordingly, the score of sexual function in the intervention group was 0.14 higher than that of the control group; the difference was not statistically significant (
Figure 3).
The Standardized Mean Difference of Sexual Function Scores Between the Intervention and Control Groups
In addition, quality assessment of articles on sexual function and satisfaction (
Tables 4 and
5) showed that 62.5% and 66.66% of articles used random methods, while 12.5% and 16.67% focused on description of this approach, respectively. The greatest shortcomings of the articles were related to the double-blind design and full description of sample loss. In fact, 25% and 33.33% of studies related to sexual performance and satisfaction presented a full description of the cause of sample loss, respectively.
| Items | Score | No. (%) |
|---|
| Direct Items |
| 1. Was the study described as randomized? | 0 | 2 (25) |
| 1 | 5 (62.5) |
| 2 | 1 (12.5) |
| 2. Was the study described as double-blind? | 0 | 8 (100) |
| 1 | - |
| 2 | - |
| 3. Was there a description of withdrawals and dropouts? | 0 | 6 (75) |
| 0.5 | - |
| 1 | 2 (25) |
| Indirect items |
| 4. Were the study objectives defined? | 0 | - |
| 1 | 8 (100) |
| 5. Were the outcome measures defined clearly? | 0 | - |
| 1 | 8 (100) |
| 6. Was there a clear description of the inclusion and exclusion criteria? | 0 | - |
| 1 | 8 (100) |
| 7. Was the sample size justified? | 0 | - |
| 1 | 8 (100) |
| 8. Was there a clear description of the interventions? | 0 | 1 (12.5) |
| 1 | 7 (87.5) |
| 9. Was there at least 1 control (comparison) group? | 0 | 1 (12.5) |
| 1 | 7 (87.5) |
| 10. Was the assessment method of adverse effects described? | 0 | 8 (100) |
| 1 | - |
| 11. Were the methods of statistical analysis described? | 0 | 1 (12.5) |
| 1 | 7 (87.5) |
| Items | Score | No. (%) |
|---|
| Direct Items |
| 1. Was the study described as randomized? | 0 | 1 (16.67) |
| 1 | 4 (66.66) |
| 2 | 1 (16.67) |
| 2. Was the study described as double-blind? | 0 | 6 (100) |
| 1 | - |
| 2 | - |
| 3. Was there a description of withdrawals and drop outs? | 0 | 4 (66.67) |
| 0.5 | - |
| 1 | 2 (33.33) |
| Indirect items |
| 4. Were the study objectives defined? | 0 | - |
| 1 | 6 (100) |
| 5. Were the outcome measures defined clearly? | 0 | - |
| 1 | 6 (100) |
| 6. Was there a clear description of the inclusion and exclusion criteria? | 0 | 1 (16.67) |
| 1 | 5 (83.33) |
| 7. Was the sample size justified? | 0 | 1 (16.67) |
| 1 | 5 (83.33) |
| 8. Was there a clear description of the interventions? | 0 | 1 (16.67) |
| 1 | 5 (83.33) |
| 9. Was there at least 1 control (comparison) group? | 0 | - |
| 1 | 6 (100) |
| 10. Was the assessment method of adverse effects described? | 0 | 6 (100) |
| 1 | - |
| 11. Were the methods of statistical analysis described? | 0 | - |
| 1 | 6 (100) |
The survey of 8 indirect items showed that 100% of articles related to sexual function explained the study objectives, results, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and sample size, which are strengths of these studies. Also, 100% of articles related to sexual satisfaction explained the study objectives and results and included at least 1 control group with complete scores.