Abstract Background Patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) often report severe, long‐standing concerns with their sexual quality of life (QOL), yet interventions for this population are scarce. This study evaluated the efficacy of a couple‐based sexual QOL intervention adapted for MBC couples in a randomized controlled trial. Methods Fifty‐five female MBC patients reporting sexual concerns and their intimate partners ( N = 110 participants) were randomized to Adapted Intimacy Enhancement (AIE), a four‐session videoconference intervention providing education and skills training for coping with sexual/intimacy concerns, or Enhanced Care‐As‐Usual (ECAU; informational booklet). Outcomes (measured at baseline, post‐intervention, and 6‐month follow‐up) included patients’ sexual outcomes (sexual function/distress/self‐efficacy; primary), patients’ psychosocial outcomes (sexual communication, relationship intimacy, and psychological distress; secondary), and similar partner outcomes (secondary). Mixed linear regression models assessed intervention effects on outcomes at follow‐ups; psychosocial outcomes were analyzed using dyadic analyses. Effect sizes (Cohen’s d ) were calculated. Results Compared to ECAU, patients in AIE reported greater improvements in overall sexual function ( p = .018), desire ( p = .007), and sexual distress ( p = .046) at 6 months, and in sexual satisfaction at both post‐intervention ( p = .02) and 6 months ( p < .001). Partners in AIE reported greater improvements in sexual distress ( p = .006), sexual self‐efficacy ( p = .008), sexual communication ( p = .004), and relationship intimacy ( p = .01) at 6 months. Effects were largest for patient sexual satisfaction and partner sexual distress at 6 months. Conclusions Compared to a detailed informational booklet on sex/intimacy, the couple‐based AIE intervention yielded long‐term benefits for MBC patients’ sexual outcomes and partners’ sexual distress and psychosocial outcomes. Future research should identify intervention mediators and optimal dissemination methods.
Reese et al. (2026) studied this question.