(056) Dyadic Approaches in Oncosexology: Understanding the Relationship between Couples’ Coping and Sexual Satisfaction among Young Adult Breast Cancer Patients and Their Partners

Abstract Introduction Recent evidence supports bio-psycho-social and non-linear models of sexual functioning. These expand current understanding cancer-related health problems to include interpersonal factors such as relationship discord, fear intimacy, lack communication (Bober & Varela, 2012). Sexual satisfaction, defined “an affective response arising from one’s subjective evaluation the positive negative dimensions associated with relationship” (Lawrence Byers, 1995; p. 268), is regarded an important metric wellbeing. However, most studies have included only one member couple, little known about how each partner’s coping may mutually contribute satisfaction. We examined reciprocal influence couples’ behaviors on individual’s Objective The present work describes between satisfaction among young adult breast cancer patients partners. Methods A sample 40 romantic couples receiving care at NCI-designated comprehensive center completed cross-sectional online surveys. Validated questionnaires (GMSEX), function (IIEF, FSFI), couple [Dyadic Coping Inventory, (DCI)] were administered. Couple includes both partners’ strategies implemented manage their own distress, well shared behaviors. Items are organized in multiple subscales: stress communication, supportive, delegate, negative, common dyadic coping. Stress refers by partners communicate other that they stressed. Supportive occurs when partner implements problem- and/or emotion-focused support person. Delegated takes over responsibilities reduce stress. Negative hostile, ambivalent, superficial. Common indicates coordinated responses Descriptive statistics paired t-tests used assess differences measures. In addition, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was estimate measurement using Mplus8, while pooled regression approach utilized Actor-Partner Interdependence Model (APIM). Results sample, supportive delegated contributed greater for partners, whereas actor effect detected Significant identified reporting higher (p<.05), partner-reported (p<.05) (p<.05). Male rated patients’ engagement more than one-half screened clinically significant dysfunction (60.6%), compared 20% Conclusions results provide importance approaches investigating functioning post-cancer treatment. exerted individual, rather mutual, styles resulted dyad members. Additional research needed confirm these findings larger samples develop effective interventions. Disclosure No