Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2022 Jan 1.
Published in final edited form as: Transplant Cell Ther. 2020 Sep 29;27(1):80.e1–80.e12. doi: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2020.09.027

Table 3.

Multivariate analysis of sexual activity and sexual function in men and women survivors

Factors in Final Regression Models: Odds Ratio (95% CI) P value Odds Ratio (95% CI) P value

SEXUALLY INACTIVE IN THE PAST YEAR:

MALES (n=847) FEMALES (n=704)

Current Age <.0001 <.0001
18–39 1.0 1.0
40–64 1.6 (0.8–3.1) .21 3.9 (1.9–7.7) .0001
≥65 4.0 (1.9–8.5) .0003 10.6 (5.1–22.0) <.0001

Education <.0001 .006
4 years college or more 1.0 1.0
<4 years college 2.2 (1.6–3.2) 1.6 (1.2–2.3)

Conditioning Regimen .02
Myeloablative 1.0 NA
Non-Myeloablative 1.8 (1.1–2.9)

Employment Status .02
Employed or school full or part time 1.0 NA
Homemaker/retired 1.8 (1.2–2.7) .005
Unemployed/disabled 1.5 (0.9–2.5) .08

Karnofsky Performance Status <.0001 .0004
100% 1.0 1.0
90% 1.8 (1.1–2.7) .009 1.3 (0.8–1.9) .25
80% or lower 2.6 (1.7–4.0) <.0001 2.4 (1.6–3.8) <.0001

Relationship Status <.0001 <.0001
In a committed relationship, RDAS high quality 1.0 1.0
In a committed relationship, RDAS low quality 1.9 (1.2–2.9) .006 1.6 (1.0–2.6) .06
Not in a committed relationship 3.6 (2.2–5.8) <.0001 7.0 (4.6–10.7) <.0001


LOW SEXUAL FUNCTIONING:

MALES (n=621) FEMALES (n=465)

Current Age <.0001
18–39 1.0 NA
40–64 3.1 (1.4–7.2) .007
≥65 7.2 (3.1–17.1) <.001

Karnofsky Performance Status <.0001 .002
100% 1.0 1.0
90% 2.8 (1.9–4.3) <0.001 1.9 (1.2–3.0) .004
80% or lower 4.0 (2.5–6.4) <0.001 2.3 (1.3–4.0) .004

Relationship Status .02
In a committed relationship, RDAS high quality NA 1.0
In a committed relationship, RDAS low quality 2.3 (1.2–4.4) .001
Not in a committed relationship 0.8 (0.5–1.4) .41

RDAS, Revised Dyadic Adjustment Scale

HHS Vulnerability Disclosure