LAUSR

With great interest, we read the Reply to our study “Discussing sexuality in cancer care: towards personalized information for cancer patients and survivors” [1]. The authors are grateful to Eeltink for her reply in which she highlighted the importance of addressing not only patients’ needs but also their partners’ needs on sexuality; in her study, which investigated patients with haematological malignancies and their partners [2]. We agree the need for information of partners is of importance. It is well known that intimate partners of patients with cancer report a negative impact of cancer and its treatment on sexuality [3, 4]. The study of Eeltink shows that a year after the diagnosis, 52% of the partners reported a need for information regarding sexuality. This declined to 34% after 18 months. Younger age was associated with a higher need. The strength of the study is the longitudinal follow-up, the multicentre performance and the high initial response rate. The response rate during follow-up and baseline characteristic of the partners were not reported. In contrast to the study of Eeltink, in cross-sectional studies among partners of breast and prostate cancer patients, a minority of the partners reported a direct need for information regarding sexuality [5, 6]. A possible explanation is a higher age. Partners of patients with different cancer might have different needs. The results of partners of patients with haematological malignancies, which were described in Eeltink’s study, might be not generalizable for all partners. Additionally, sexuality might not be the priority of all partners. However, partners seem to prefer the opportunity to discuss sexuality with a healthcare provider and stated their involvement during the counselling of their partners as important [5, 6]. In collaboration with the Dutch Federation of Cancer Patient Organizations, our group performed a study among 230 partners of patients with cancer. These results are accepted for publication elsewhere. In contrast, we found no relationship between age and the need for information. In line with the results of Eeltink, we found a persistent need for information regarding sexuality over time emphasizing the importance of information being available independent of healthcare professionals. In accordance with Eeltinks’ conclusion, we believe that it is important that information and additional support regarding sexuality are available for partners when needed. Lack of time and lack of knowledge are important barriers for discussing sexuality [7, 8]. There might be not enough dedicated time or specialized knowledge during busy outpatients clinics with a focus on cancer status to discuss sexual health with the patients and partners [8]. Further research could focus on differences in the needs of partners of different cancer types and organizational factors to optimize the delivery of sexual healthcare to cancer patients and their partners.