Table 3.
Secondary sexual function and relationship outcomes for participants and partners
| Participants |
Partners |
|||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Scale | Sex SMART (n=30)a | Control (n=30)a | Sex SMART (n=30)a | Control (n=30)a |
| SDI-2 total score | ||||
| Baseline | 31.2±15.3 | 27.2±16.0 | 61.7±14.7 | 66.1±15.3 |
| Week 12 | 37.8±13.7 | 35.2±18.7 | 62.0±14.1 | 66.1±13.9 |
| Delta | +6.6±12.7b | +8.0±10.6b | +0.3±6.9 | −0.1±8.9 |
| Effect estimatec | −0.5 (−5.4 to +4.4); P=.57 | −0.5 (−3.8 to +2.9); P=.69 | ||
| Overall estimated | −0.6 (−3.5 to +2.4); P=.87 | |||
| RDAS total score | ||||
| Baseline | 48.8±6.7 | 45.6±8.0 | 48.7±5.7 | 45.3±6.7 |
| Week 12 | 48.0±6.5 | 44.9±8.3 | 48.6±6.3 | 45.1±7.6 |
| Delta | −0.8±6.2 | −0.8±5.1 | −0.1±3.6 | −0.2±5.2 |
| Effect estimatec | +0.9 (−1.6 to +3.3); P=.28 | +0.5 (−1.5 to +2.6); P=.33 | ||
| Overall estimated | +0.7 (−0.8 to +2.3); P=.22 | |||
| FSDS total score | NA | NA | ||
| Baseline | 27.9±9.5 | 27.7±10.9 | … | … |
| Week 12 | 23.4±9.9 | 24.9±10.9 | … | … |
| Delta | −4.5±7.0b | −3.6±6.6b | … | … |
| Effect estimatec | −0.8 (−3.7 to +2.1); P=.33 | |||
| IIEF-EF | NA | NA | ||
| Baseline | … | … | 25.8±8.8 | 25.8±8.8 |
| Week 12 | … | … | 28.2±5.5 | 25.9±8.6 |
| Delta | … | … | 2.4±6.6 | −0.1±5.8 |
| Effect estimatec | ... | +2.6 (+0.3 to +4.9); P=.04 | ||
FSDS = Female Sexual Distress Scale (lower scores are better); IIEF-EF = International Index of Erectile Function–Erectile Function subscale; NA = not applicable; RDAS = Revised Dyadic Adjustment Scale (higher scores are better); SDI-2 = Sexual Desire Inventory-2 (higher scores are better); Sex SMART = Stress Management and Resiliency Training for Sexuality.
Baseline values were carried forward to week 12 for participants who had missing information for a given scale at week 12. For participants, FSDS was missing for 3 (2, Sex SMART; 1, control) at baseline and 15 (11, Sex SMART; 4, control) at week 12; SDI-2 was available for all participants at baseline but missing for 13 (11, Sex SMART; 2, control) at week 12; RDAS was missing for 3 (1, Sex SMART; 2, control) at baseline and 13 (10, Sex SMART; 3, control) at week 12. For partners, SDI-2 was missing for 2 (1, Sex SMART; 1, control) at baseline and 11 (11, Sex SMART; 0, control) at week 12; RDAS was missing for 2 (2, Sex SMART; 0, control) at baseline and 9 (9, Sex SMART; 0, control) at week 12. IIEF-EF was missing for 3 partners at baseline (1, Sex SMART; 2, control) and missing for 13 (13, Sex SMART; 0, control) at week 12.
P<.05, paired t test comparing week 12 versus baseline.
Change from baseline was compared between treatments using analysis of covariance, with the baseline value included as a covariate. The point estimate (90% CI) is presented for the estimated treatment effect (Sex SMART vs control) along with the one-tailed P value assessing whether a significant beneficial effect existed for Sex SMART compared with control.
Analysis was performed using a mixed linear model with the couple identifier included as a random effect.