Protocol for a randomised controlled feasibility trial of an integrated psychosexual intervention for sexual difficulties in people with Multiple Sclerosis: the PIMS trial

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-3979575/v1

Background:

Multiple Sclerosis (MS) is a long-term condition that significantly diminishes quality of life (QoL). Sexual difficulties (SDs) are common, but often overlooked symptom, affecting 50-80% of people with MS (PwMS). The emergence of SDs in MS results from the intricate interplay of disease processes, treatments, and psychosocial factors, contributing to a further decline in QoL and adverse effects on body image, relationships, and psychological well-being. Despite the limited treatment options, which mainly include medications and physiotherapy, there is promise in psychological interventions for addressing SDs in PwMS, although integrating them into routine care poses challenges. This protocol details the trial assessing the acceptability and feasibility of an eight-session, clinicians supported integrated Psychosexual Intervention for people with Multiple Sclerosis (PIMS).

Methods:

This is a multicentre interventional two-arm randomized feasibility trial with a nested qualitative study to gather preliminary data about the intervention and the feasibility of conducting a full-scale trial. We aim to recruit 50 PwMS across three research sites in England’s National Health Service (NHS). Participants will be randomised to either the PIMS intervention (comprised of 8 sessions: 6 self-led and 2-facilitator led over the course of 12 weeks) or psychosexual education (one appointment with a facilitator to discuss treatment options). Feasibility will be assessed by collecting descriptive data on recruitment and retention rates and willingness to be randomised according to Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) feasibility and pilot trial guidelines. Patient reported outcomes (e.g., measures of sexual functioning and distress, psychological functioning, and quality of life) will be measured at baseline and follow up 14-weeks after randomisation. We will also use a nested qualitative study will use inductive thematic analysis to identify barriers to engagement with and delivery of the intervention, and to make appropriate modifications to PIMS.

Discussion:

The PIMS intervention will be the first integrated psychosexual intervention developed for people with Multiple Sclerosis in the UK. We will be using Assessing the feasibility of PIMS is an important first step to establishing future implementation and efficacy via a definitive randomised controlled trial.

Trial registration: This trial is registered at ISRCTN: 12202900 https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN12202900

Registration date: 28^th February 2023; Retrospectively registered

IRAS identification: 305830

NIHR award reference: NIHR202006

Trial sponsorship: This trial is co-sponsored by South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust and King’s College London. Contact: [email protected]

Protocol version: 1.3, 21^st February 2024

Multiple Sclerosis

randomised controlled feasibility trial

psychosexual therapy

sexual dysfunction

Multiple Sclerosis (MS) is a long-term condition (LTC) with a substantial impact on quality of life (QoL) [1, 2]. Sexual difficulties (SDs) are a common and distressing symptom of MS, with a 2023 systematic review and meta-analysis reporting a global prevalence of 62.5% in women with MS [3] and estimates of 50-90% in men with MS [4, 5]. SDs in MS negatively impact QoL, relationship satisfaction, body image, and can exacerbate symptoms of depression and anxiety with moderate effect [4-7]. In a large study (N = 6183 people with MS) sexual dysfunction had a greater impact on the psychological components of QoL than the severity of disability [8]. Longitudinal studies show that for both men and women with MS, the number of SD symptoms increases significantly over time after diagnosis (e.g., vaginal dryness or erectile dysfunction becomes more severe or additional SDs develop) [9, 10].

SDs in MS arise from the complex interplay of disease processes, disability, side effects of medications, and psychosocial factors [11]. However, current treatments for people with MS (PwMS) are largely limited to medications which treat SDs caused by disease mechanisms (e.g., erectile dysfunction; reduced genital sensation). A Cochrane review of trials of medications for erectile dysfunction in MS show mixed efficacy and adverse side effects were commonly reported [12]. There are no medications that target ejaculatory problems or the psychological or biological contributory factors for the development and maintenance of other SDs in men. Pharmacological treatments for women with SDs are even more limited and are not MS-specific (e.g., Filbanserin for low sexual desire). Research suggests the most effective type of treatment protocol for SDs in PwMS is multidisciplinary given the biopsychosocial nature of the difficulties. This is optimally designed in collaboration with neurologists, specialist nurses, psychologists, and psychosexual clinicians [13]. Clinical specialists and other health care professionals working with PwMS (MS specialist nurses, physiotherapists, continence nurses) are best placed to deliver an intervention for sexual difficulties given their expertise and existing relationships with PwMS [13, 14].

A systematic review of controlled clinical trials shows good efficacy of psychological interventions for diagnosed sexual dysfunctions (ICD-coded rather than SDs more generally) in men and women in the general population, with most studies showing small to moderate effects [15]. Similarly, Cochrane reviews show evidence for the treatment of sexual dysfunctions with psychotherapeutic interventions in people with cardiovascular disease [16], after cancer [17], and for men with erectile dysfunction [18]. A 2021 systematic review with meta-analysis supports the efficacy of mindfulness-based therapies in the treatment of men and women with SDs, with moderate effect sizes [19]. All reviews call for higher quality studies to evaluate the efficacy of psychological interventions in the treatment of SDs, as many have varying outcome measures, therapeutic approaches, high risk of bias, and small sample sizes.

Given the burden of SDs in PwMS, there is increased interest in designing MS specific interventions targeting this troubling symptom. A systematic review of 12 clinical trials (N = 611) found that sex therapy, mindfulness, and physiotherapy showed some efficacy in treating sexual difficulties in MS [20]. One intervention (N = 70) combined non-specific mindfulness meditation and pelvic floor exercises [21], where mindfulness groups showed greater increase in sexual functioning and satisfaction compared to wait-list controls. However, these and other interventions have been tested exclusively in women and took varying approaches (e.g., exclusively non-specific psychotherapies, psychosexual therapy, and physiotherapy) [22-31] and would be difficult to integrate into regular care in the National Health Service (NHS; or other nationalised healthcare systems) for four primary reasons:

1) they require highly skilled clinical practitioners (typically psychologists or physiotherapists) to deliver the intervention,

2) they provide no information about including men with MS, and

3) they require significant additional appointment time with healthcare practitioners (HCPs)

4) mechanisms for improvement of SDs are not clearly specified or linked to theory

Additionally, previous intervention trials frequently have no active control condition, so any effects may relate to time and attention rather than intervention mechanisms. Thus, we aim to investigate, for the first time, a theory-informed treatment using a more scalable delivery format that can be embedded in NHS MS services.

Specifically, our integrated Psychosexual Intervention for sexual difficulties in people with Multiple Sclerosis (PIMS) comprises components from sex education tailored to PwMS (including practical/medical advice specific to MS care), psychosexual therapy (e.g., improving sexual communication), and ACT, including mindfulness (present moment awareness) and values for enhancing motivation to engage in sex and intimacy [34, 35]. To do this, we first developed a working theoretical model of disease etiological factors of SDs in MS based on existing empirical evidence. Identified mechanisms were then mapped onto possible medical and psychosexual treatment techniques. We then used experience-based co-design (EBCD) to 1) determine areas of importance and 2) finalize content for a self-directed intervention that could be delivered in routine care. Through these systematic methods, we created an integrative 8-session manualized Psychosexual Intervention for people with Multiple Sclerosis (PIMS): 6 sessions are self-guided and 2 are facilitated by trained MS HCPs.

We will assess the acceptability of the intervention to HCPs and PwMS within the NHS in England and the feasibility of running a future NHS based fully powered randomised controlled trial. To do this, we will be assessing the adapted PIMS intervention alongside a standard care arm within a feasibility RCT.

This protocol was prepared using the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) checklist and Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) feasibility and pilot trial guidelines. See Appendix C for full checklist.

Objectives

The primary objective is to evaluate the feasibility of a larger randomised controlled trial based on eligibility and recruitment rates, retention, and adherence.

Feasibility Objectives: People with Multiple Sclerosis

1. Determine eligibility rates (proportion of those screened who meet inclusion criteria)

2. Recruitment rates (proportion of eligible PwMS consented to trial)

3. Assess retention of participants (% participants who complete 14-week follow up assessment)

4. Assess participant adherence

a. Average number of appointments attended

b. Average number of self-guided sessions completed

5. Acceptability as indicated by:

a. Average acceptability ratings according to eight items on a theoretical framework of acceptability questionnaire [36, 37]

b. Acceptability of self-reported outcome measures for a future trial (i.e., completion rates, reliability, item-level missing data, floor/ceiling effects, participant validity rating of sex-related outcomes)

Feasibility Objectives: NHS Sites

1. Recruitment rates

a. Number of NHS sites recruiting for trial

b. Number of facilitators recruited from neurology services to deliver the intervention

2. Facilitator adherence

a. Proportion of required session material covered during appointments

Secondary Objectives

1) To explore the differences in means on self-reported outcomes between trial arms and at between pre-post randomisation time points

2) To qualitatively explore the participant perceptions of the acceptability and usefulness of the PIMS/psychosexual education (PSE; comparator group) packages and identify areas of improvement for a full-scale trial

3) To qualitatively explore HCPs perceptions of acceptability and usefulness of the PIMS/PSE packages and barriers/facilitators to delivery

4) To explore the feasibility of collecting health economic estimates of: 1) the costs of the psychosexual intervention, and 2) assessment of the feasibility of collecting data on health service utilisation and health-related quality of life for sexual difficulties in people with multiple sclerosis

Trial Design

This is a multicentre interventional two-arm randomized feasibility trial with a nested qualitative study to gather preliminary data about the intervention and the feasibility of conducting a full-scale trial. Fifty PwMS will be randomised to either the PIMS intervention (comprised of 8 sessions: 6 self-led and 2-facilitator led over the course of 12 weeks) or psychosexual education (one appointment with a facilitator based on NICE guidelines to discuss treatment options).

Study Setting

This is a multicentre trial at 3 NHS trusts (two hospitals, one community clinic) in England within neurology or specialist MS services. Participants will be recruited from these services when attending routine appointments by the MS clinicians including MS nurses, neurologists, occupational and physiotherapists. Facilitators of both intervention arms will be trained MS clinicians within these services. Where possible, appointments will be scheduled at times to suit the participant (during usual clinic hours) and will be conducted in a private environment either remotely (telephone or video conferencing) or at one of the NHS sites depending on patient/facilitator availability.

Self-report questionnaires and informed consent will be completed online via Qualtrics (https://qualtrics.kcl.ac.uk/). This is a confidential survey software that is complaint with General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR). The interviews for the nested qualitative study, conducted by members of the research team, will be run remotely and audio/video recorded and transcribed.

Eligibility Criteria

Inclusion Criteria

For PwMS in the intervention study:

· Confirmed diagnosis of Multiple Sclerosis

· Attending the Neurology clinic at one of the participating research sites

· Aged ≥ 18

· Affirmative response to the following question:

o Are you currently experiencing any sort of sexual or intimacy difficulty?

· Able and willing to provide informed consent

For facilitators participating in nested qualitative study:

· Clinical staff at research sites that work with people with Multiple Sclerosis

Exclusion Criteria

For PwMS in the intervention study

· Severe visual or hearing impairments which will impact the ability to engage in the intervention.

· Severe mental health disorder (e.g., psychosis) which will impact the ability to engage in the intervention.

· Receiving psychotherapy for sex or intimacy difficulties or are participating in any other psychological intervention trial during the time they will be in the study.

· Insufficient verbal and/or written proficiency in English.

For facilitators participating in nested qualitative study:

· Unable or unwilling to consent to participate in the follow up interviews.

Interventions

No modifications will be made to the interventions during the trial. All participants in each arm will receive the same intervention, but advice, referrals, and treatment options from HCPs will be tailored to the individual needs of participants (e.g., based on presenting issue, sexual orientation, age, gender, etc).

PIMS

PIMS is an adapted psychosexual intervention that is primarily self-directed with support from trained MS HCPs. The purpose of this intervention is to target biological, cognitive, emotional, and behavioural aspects of sexual difficulties for people with MS.

Development.

First, we developed a working theoretical model of etiological factors of SDs in MS based on existing empirical evidence, which states there are three primary causal levels of SDs in PwMS: primary (caused by disease mechanisms), secondary (caused by disease symptoms and treatment side effects) and tertiary (caused by psychosocial factors) [38]. We then mapped each of these etiological pathways onto possible medical and psychosexual treatment techniques such as Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) and psychosexual education. We also drew on previous mindfulness-based interventions treating 1) sexual difficulties in people with MS and spinal cord injuries [32] and 2) women with low sexual desire [39].

Next, we used experience-based co-design (EBCD) to 1) determine areas of importance and 2) finalize content for a self-directed intervention that could be delivered in routine care. EBCD is a systematic method for working with patients and HCPs to improve healthcare delivery and outcomes via workshops and interviews with [40]. We then iteratively worked with a group of 7 PwMS to finalize the intervention manual. Grounded in theory and supported by patient and public involvement, we created an integrative 8-session manualized Psychosexual Intervention for people with Multiple Sclerosis (PIMS): 6 sessions are self-guided and 2 are facilitated by trained MS HCPs.

There are three components of PIMS:

1. Psycho- and sexual- education

· This will help provide a knowledge base about the interaction between MS and possible biological changes affecting sexual functioning, psychological functioning, and sexual wellbeing.

2. Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT)

· These techniques will be used to support PwMS developing present-moment awareness of and openness to MS-related challenges to enable engagement in personally meaningful sex, intimacy, and relationship activities. A growing number of trials support the use of ACT in LTCs [41].

3. Psychosexual therapy techniques

· Sex and relationship therapy techniques, such as sensate focus therapy [42] and enhancing communication, will be integrated into the intervention to target difficulties in navigating sexual relationships after an MS diagnosis

Table 1 outlines the topics and tasks for each session.

Table 1 Summary of PIMS sessions.

Session	Content	Session delivery	Type of SDs targeted	Techniques used
1	· Familiarisation with workbook · Understanding the problem – How does MS affect sex and intimacy? · Identifying MS ‘roadblocks’ · Mapping sexual/intimacy challenges · Between session task: Your personal ‘snowball’	Self-directed	Primary; Secondary; Tertiary	Education
2	· Anatomy and physiology of sexual response · Introduction to sexual aids and treatments for sexual difficulties · Identifying your values and goals around sex and intimacy · Between sessions task: Mirror exercise	Self-directed	Primary; Secondary	Education; ACT
3	· Reviewing sex and intimacy issues from session 1 · Reviewing values from session 2 · Identifying and planning goals (connected to values) · Discussing treatment options · Between session task: 3-minute breathing exercise	With facilitator	Primary; Secondary	ACT
4	· The stigma of sex and disability · Identifying sexual beliefs · Shifting the focus on sex and intimacy · Facing challenges with self-compassion · Between session task: Self-observation mindfulness exercise	Self-directed	Tertiary	ACT; Psychosexual therapy
5	· Identifying and accepting unwanted thoughts · Introduction to cognitive defusion · Body image and sexuality · Becoming more aware: Staying in the present moment · Between session tasks: mindfulness during a regular activity	Self-directed	Tertiary	ACT
6	· An introduction to sensate focus practices with self and others · Connecting intimately with others · Enhancing communication about sex and intimacy · Defining and maintaining boundaries · Between session exercise: Mindfulness of sound	Self-directed	Tertiary	Psychosexual therapy
7	· Discussing treatment progress/ check in · Identifying areas of difficulty · Adapting and committing to goals · Between session exercises: Body scan	With facilitator	Primary; Secondary; Tertiary	ACT
8	· Personal summary of sessions · Integrating mindfulness into daily life · Establishing a toolkit for success · Adapting to changes in MS, relationships, and body image · Keeping communication open	Self-directed	Primary; Secondary; Tertiary	Education; ACT; Psychosexual therapy

Training and supervision.

Facilitators will be clinicians who work with PwMS in the neurology services recruited for this study. Training before intervention delivery will be two half-day sessions. Session 1 will focus on trial protocol, education on techniques being used/ manual navigation, and discussion of case studies. Before session 2, all facilitators will work with a member of our patient and public involvement group to practice a facilitated session. This will be audio/video recorded and individual feedback will be provided by the trial manager. The second training session will act as an introduction to supervision sessions, where practice participants will be discussed, and peer feedback will be given.

Facilitators will be expected to attend clinical supervision sessions every 2-4 weeks, led by the study PI and trial manager who developed the intervention, and a clinical collaborator who specialises in ACT. One-on-one supervision will be provided ad-hoc based-on facilitator needs.

Delivery.

If randomised to the PIMS treatment arm, participants will be provided with a structured PIMS therapy manual including worksheets and between-session tasks. The manual will be provided as a pdf upon randomisation confirmation and a hard copy will be posted after participants provide their mailing address. The PIMS manual will have six self-guided sessions (designed to take around 50 minutes each) and two facilitator-led sessions (designed to last approximately 30 minutes; see Table 1 above). Participants will be expected to complete all eight sessions within 12 weeks of randomisation.

Facilitated sessions will be delivered either on site or remotely (via telephone), based on participant/facilitator availability and preferences. These sessions will be designed to last 30 minutes and are focused on goal setting, treatment/referral options, and participants’ progress through the PIMS manual. We will use the PACT approach to goal setting: goals should be Purposeful, Actionable, Continuous, and Trackable. This was chosen over the traditional ‘SMART’ goal method (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, And Time-Bound) typically employed in health-related interventions [43, 44] as PACT goals are more relevant to creating longer term goals with a focus on what can be controlled by the goal-setter; this is also more in line with ACT principles of committed action.

At the end of each appointment, facilitators will complete an online log that details 1) preparation for the session, 2) material covered during session, 3) date/duration/mode of delivery, and 4) any notes of concern to be brought to the research team.

Psychosexual Education

Development.

We developed our comparator treatment based on NICE guidelines for MS symptom management [45] which states that treatment options for sexual dysfunction should be discussed with HCPs. Despite this being the formal recommendation by NICE, PwMS (including our patient and public involvement group) report that this is rarely discussed during appointments and that clinicians are often inconsistent and uncomfortable having these discussions. For the purposes of this study, our Psychosexual Education (PSE) comparator will be designed as a one-off appointment with an MS HCP of approximately 30 minutes to discuss 1) basic psychosexual education (such as sexual anatomy and response), and 2) possible treatment options (along with any relevant referrals). This will be an appropriate comparator as it allows all participants to receive treatment and helps us examine feasibility and acceptability of our intervention against what is advised to be ‘standard care’. We will use currently available resources for PwMS experiencing sexual and intimacy challenges along with input from PPI and MS HCPs to create an information leaflet to be used during appointments. This is consistent with NICE guidelines and recommendations for managing sexual and intimacy challenges put forth by the MS Society[46] and MS Trust[47, 48].

Training and supervision.

We will hold a half-day training session for facilitators who delivered the PSE treatment arm. To reduce possible contamination effects, facilitators of the PSE arm will not receive information about the psychological intervention strategies used in PIMS (e.g., mindfulness). Training will largely cover possible treatments, both those available on the NHS and privately. Referral pathways and availability of additional services will also be discussed (e.g., urogynaecology or psychosexual clinics). Supervision will be held every 6-8 weeks with the trial manager, along with individual ad hoc meetings as requested.

Delivery.

The PSE treatment will be a single 30-minute session with a trained facilitator. Sessions will be held in clinic or remotely based on facilitator/participant availability and preference. The appointment will involve facilitators asking standardised questions about sexual difficulties, discussing medication, and signposting to other resources. At the time of randomisation, participants will be emailed a pdf of the PSE leaflet; they will also receive a hard copy if they attend their appointment in clinic.

As with the PIMS arm, facilitators will be asked to complete an online log that details 1) preparation, 2) material covered, 3) appointment details, and 4) any notes of concern to be brought to the research team.

Outcomes

Primary Feasibility Parameters

Feasibility will be assessed by collecting descriptive data on recruitment and retention rates and willingness to be randomised according to Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) feasibility and pilot trial guidelines[49]. The outcomes will be collected by someone separate to the facilitator. We will determine the following:

· Eligibility and recruitment rates

o This will allow us to determine whether our eligibility criteria are appropriate, and whether those eligible to participate (i.e., complete screening) are willing to be randomised.

· Follow up/retention rates

o Proportion of participants who were randomised that completed follow up assessment.

o If participants drop out, we will attempt to contact them to investigate reasons for doing so.

· Treatment adherence rates

o Total number of appointments attended/completed.

o Number of appointments attended with facilitator.

o Number of self-guided sessions completed.

At least one activity completed per session will be considered partial completion.

Number of activities completed by session.

o Adherence will be defined as attending at least one facilitated session and completing at least 3 self-guided sessions.

· Acceptability of the intervention

o This will be evaluated based on constructs identified as being part of a theoretical framework for acceptability that have been developed into an 8-item scale for use in feasibility trials [36, 37, 50]. Items are on 5-point Likert response scales, though scale points differ based on the item. Wording of the items will be adapted for this study, as is directed by the scale authors. Participants in the PSE and PIMS arm will both respond to the scale.

· Health Economics

o We will examine the feasibility of collecting data in interviews with trial participants and via a modified Adult Service Use Schedule (ADSUS).

o For health-related quality of life, we will measure the completion rate and item missingness for the EQ-5D-5L.

o To estimate the cost of the psychosexual intervention, we will collect details on training, to include materials and the time costs of those attending and training, alongside the time average duration and number of treatment sessions.

· Nested qualitative study

o We will investigate patients’ and facilitators’ experience with the intervention

Patient Reported Outcomes

Sex- and intimacy-related outcomes.

We will assess multiple measures of sex and intimacy to determine which are most appropriate outcomes measures for a full-scale trial. This will be measured via reliability, validity, change scores, and floor/ceiling effects.

The Sexual Function Evaluation Questionnaire (SFEQ)[51] will be used to assess level of sexual functioning. This was designed and validated as a clinical tool to assess patients with sexual difficulties; it shows good internal and external validity and reliability. The SFEQ has 16 items with one general score and four sub-scale scores (problem distress, partner relationship, sex life, and sexual confidence). Subsequent items are triggered if respondents indicate having difficulties in items relating to the four domains in the past month via a binary yes/no response. Higher scores indicate more negative outcomes.

The Multiple Sclerosis Intimacy and Sexuality Questionnaire (MSISQ-19)[52] was designed to assess MS-specific sex and intimacy related difficulties. Sum scores will be generated for each level of causation of SDs in MS (primary, secondary, and tertiary). Nineteen items will be responded on a scale of 1 (never) to 5 (always), with respondents stating how often each issue (e.g., tremors or shaking, concentration difficulties, bladder symptoms) has interfered with sexual activity or satisfaction in the past 6 months. The MSISQ-19 shows good psychometric properties across samples [53-56].

The Female Sexual Distress Scale-Revised (FSDS-R) will assess sexual distress. The FSDS-R shows good psychometric properties in clinical samples of women with sexual dysfunction. Thirteen items will assess how much a problem (e.g., feeling inferior because of sexual problems) has bothered or distressed respondents in the past month on a scale from 0 (never) to 4 (always). This scale will be used for both male and female participants as it has been validated in both [57-59] – items do not contain any female-specific wording (despite the title). An overall score will be used in between-group analysis.

The New Sexual Satisfaction Scale – Short form (NSSS-S)[60, 61] is a 12 item measure assessing overall sexual satisfaction. Respondents will be asked to indicate how satisfied they are with certain aspects of their sex life (such as ‘my mood after sexual activity’) in the past six months on a scale of 1 (extremely satisfied) to 7 (extremely dissatisfied). The scale shows good psychometric properties across samples[62, 63]. An overall score will be generated for between-group analysis.

Secondary outcomes.

The Guy’s Neurological Disability Scale [64] will assess 12 categories of MS-specific disability: cognitive, mood, visual, speech and communication, swallowing, upper limb, lower limb, bladder, bowel, sexual, fatigue, and miscellaneous disability (e.g., dizziness, medication side effects). Each domain has between 2-10 yes or no (binary) items. All domains begin with the question ‘do you have any problems with [domain]?’. Responding yes to this item will trigger subsequent items. Each domain is scored on a scale of 0-5, with 0 indicating no problems and 5 indicating total loss of function (e.g., full time wheelchair user). The GNDS shows good content and face validity, and inter-rater and test-retest reliability; these results have been replicated across studies [65, 66]. A total score and a subscale score for sexual dysfunction will be calculated for use in between-group analysis.

The EQ-5D-5L measures health-related quality of life in five dimensions (mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain/discomfort, and anxiety/depression), with five severity levels for each dimension[67]. This is a revised version of previous EQ-5D, with more sensitivity to changes in health decrements and simplified instructions. This is a self-report measure with a single item for each dimension asking for respondents to describe their health at present. Each item has 5 possible responses, with these increasing in severity. There is a final sixth item, asking for respondents to rate their overall health on the day on a sliding scale of 0 (‘the worst health you can imagine’) to 100 (‘the best health you can imagine’). The EQ-5D-5L is widely used and well validated in clinical and non-clinical populations[68, 69]. An overall score and the self-rated heath score will be used in between-group analysis.

Depression symptoms will be measured via the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9)[70] and anxiety symptoms will be measured via the Generalised Anxiety Disorders-7 questionnaire (GAD-7)[71]. These are 9 and 7 item measures, respectively, asking about symptoms over the past two weeks, with higher scores indicating more severe symptoms. They have been widely validated in clinical populations. Sum scores will be generated for both measures.

Plausible process variables.

Mindfulness is often operationalised as having five facets 1) observing; 2) describing; 3) awareness of actions; 4) non-judgement; and 5) non-reactivity. In the context of sex and relationships, studies[72, 73] link the ‘awareness of actions’ and ‘non-judgement’ facets to increased sexual and relationship satisfaction. To measure this, we will use these two sub-scales from the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ)[74]. The FFMQ show good psychometric properties that have been replicated across cultures[75, 76] and in LTC patient groups[77]. Both subscales are comprised of 8 items that are responded to on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from ‘never or very rarely true’ to ‘very often or always true’. An average score will be computed for the two subscales being used for this study.

The Dyadic Sexual Communication Scale (DSC)[78] is a 13-item measure assessing comfort in discussing sex with partners. Respondents indicate how much they agree with statements such as ‘I seldom feel embarrassed when talking about the details of our sex life with my partner’ considering their current relationships on a scale of 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree). Higher sum scores indicate stronger sexual communication. The DSC has shown good psychometric properties across samples[79] and is predictive of sexual outcomes (e.g., satisfaction)[80]. A total sore will be used in between-group analysis.

Safety Assessment and Event Reporting

If suicidal ideation is detected during screening/data collection, as indicated by a score of >1 on the depression PHQ9 item ‘Thoughts that you would be better off dead, or of hurting yourself’, then a risk assessment will be performed to determine the urgency of referral to liaison psychiatry. This will also be done if a participant reports suicidal ideation during intervention sessions. Level of risk will be assessed in line with the King’s Health Partners ‘Integrating Mental and Physical healthcare: research, training and services’ (IMPARTS) risk assessment protocol[89]. This will include enquiring about degree of suicidal ideation, whether active plans are present, the patient’s history of suicide attempts, recent life stressors, protective factors, and current social support. The risk assessment will be carried out by a trained member of the research team.

If risk is deemed to be low, we will determine if the participant needs more support and ask if they are willing to inform their GP; they will be given a letter to give to their GP regarding their risk assessment outcome. If risk is high, this will be escalated to relevant mental health services.

If deterioration in the participants’ mental health at any stage of the trial, and these needs are outside the scope of the intervention, this will be discussed with the CI and an appropriate referral plan to psychiatry or psychology will be made.

Given that intervention material may lead to participants reflecting on past experiences of sex and intimacy, there will be the potential for participants to disclose past experiences of sexual assault or domestic violence. Facilitators, who have all undergone safeguarding training, will be able to signpost them to relevant supports should this be requested. Facilitators will also be given additional information regarding this during intervention training. If there is suspected/disclosed ongoing abuse, a brief safeguarding assessment will be made and this will be discussed with the CI or trial investigator and the clinician in charge of the patient to determine if a safeguarding report needs to be made, in line with NHS safeguarding guidance[79].

Adverse events (AE), adverse reactions (AR), and serious adverse events/reactions, verified by site PI, will be sent immediately to the CI, who will report this to the REC and sponsor within 15 days of becoming aware of the event. Participants will be asked to self-report AEs in follow up data collection; If relevant the team will discuss AEs (e.g., other contact with health services, major life events) with the TSC/DMC to determine if these are AR related to the intervention.

Other Data Collected

Health Economics

For health-related quality of life, we will measure the completion rate and item missingness for the EQ-5D-5L, which would be used as the primary outcome measure for cost-effectiveness analysis in a subsequent full RCT. For the feasibility of collecting data on broader health service use, we will modify and test a version of the Adult Service Use Schedule (ADSUS) and will assess the measure’s comprehensiveness in capturing all relevant services, and specifically identify items which were redundant, or important services that had been omitted.

Sociodemographic and Clinical Data

· Date of birth

· Gender

· Sex assigned at birth

· Post code

· Level of education (based on highest qualification achieved)

· Relationship status

· Ethnicity

· Sexual orientation

· Type of MS (relapse remitting, secondary progressive, or primary progressive)

· Length of time since MS diagnosis

Qualitative Assessment

The primary aim of the nested qualitative study will be to gather participants’ and facilitators’ experiences of PSE, PIMS, and facilitators’ experiences of training/intervention delivery. This will enable us identify barriers to engagement with and delivery of the intervention, and to make appropriate modifications to PIMS, facilitator training, and trial design. We will also explore barriers to participation by interviewing participants who drop out at different points (e.g., pre-intervention vs. mid-intervention). Data (minimum of 20 interviews with participants, and all facilitators) will be collected via semi-structured interviews (audio-recorded, telephone, or face-to-face). Interviewers will be independent of study facilitators.

Participant Timeline

From date of randomisation, participants are expected to be in the study for 14 weeks; see Figure 1.

Figure 1

Anticipated flow of participants through the study. Number of patients referred for screening, assessed for eligibility,, and consented will be recorded. Eligible and consented participants will be invited to complete baseline measures (T0). After baseline, participants will be randomised. The PIMS arm will receive the intervention over 12 weeks. The PSE arm will have their one-off session by week 12. All participants will complete follow-up measures at 14 weeks post-randomisation (T1). Participants in both arms will be invited to take part in qualitative interview at the end.

Sample Size

A sample of 50 is within the recommended sample size for feasibility trials [81]. As significance testing is not used in trials of this nature, the sample size is based on the precision with which the key parameters are estimated. A sample size of 50 will allow us to estimate recruitment rates with a 95%CI of width +/-8% assuming 50% recruitment (width will be narrower if recruitment lower) and drop-out rates with a 95%CI with maximum width ±14% overall and ±20% within each group. A sample size of 50 will also provide an estimate of the standard deviation in the study population that is sufficiently accurate to be used in the sample size estimation for a definitive trial.

Between three study sites we will expect to recruit 17 participants from each. Over a 9-month recruitment period, this will require a recruitment rate of approximately 2-3 participants per month per site. This recruitment period was extended based on study timelines and clinician availability. The date of randomisation of the first participant was February 8^th, 2023. Recruitment will close on February 29^th, 2024.

Recruitment

There are three ways in which participants will be approached for recruitment:

1. During their regular neurology clinic visit by their MS HCP

2. By contacting the research team via flyers posted in clinic waiting areas

3. By contacting the research team after receiving a copy of the information sheet via post (clinicians will identify potential participants to send these to)

The research team will only approach potential participants about the study and to complete screening if they have provided consent to contact. Consent to contact will be gained either by 1) consent given to the healthcare team during their initial approach or 2) if potential participants reach out directly to the research team and provide this consent.

To determine if people meet the inclusion/exclusion criteria, a brief screening questionnaire will be done (via Qualtrics) with a member of the research team.

We have chosen not to use a standardised measure as a screening tool as it can act as a barrier to recruitment (e.g., through scoring cut-offs) and can produce a regression to the mean effect across groups. We will explore the possibility of using a standardised measure (e.g., the Female Sexual Distress Inventory) as a screening tool in a later RCT.

Intervention facilitators (clinical staff) will be invited to take part in the nested qualitative study. All intervention facilitators will be invited for the interviews; we expect for all facilitators to take part.

Methods: Assignment of Interventions

Allocation

Participants will be randomised to the intervention or control group following a 1:1 ratio using randomly varying block sizes to maintain similar numbers across each group during the period of recruitment. Randomisation will be stratified by centre and three gender groups: 1) cisgender men, 2) cisgender women, and 3) transgender/nonbinary. There will be an equal probability of being randomised to the PIMS or PSE arm for groups 1 and 2, and a 100% chance of being randomised to the PIMS treatment group for those in group 3.

Randomisation will take place after baseline measures have been completed using the King’s Clinical Trial Unit (KCTU) online randomisation service. The system will be online and managed independent of the trial team. Only the trial manager will have full access to the KCTU randomisation system and will generate trial allocation. Research assistants who help with participant assignment (e.g., mailing out the PIMS manual/ emails about trial allocation) will have access to the randomisation outcome; they will not be performing any full trial analysis.

Individuals who identify as transgender or nonbinary will not be randomised. Research suggests that 1% or less of the population identifies as transgender or non-binary [82], we do not expect to have more than 1 participant in this category. They will not be randomised and will be included in the PIMS arm to assess acceptability. Thus, data regarding treatment outcomes from those who identify as non-binary or transgender will not contribute to randomised comparisons but will inform retention and acceptability through the qualitative interview. Given this is a feasibility trial we have decided to prioritise information concerning the acceptability of the intervention in this group, rather than maximising the precision of between group comparisons which are not to be tested statistically anyway.

Blinding

Group allocation will be concealed for the trial statistician who will undertake the primary between group analysis. The CI and members of the research team that are solely responsible for screening/data collection will also be blinded. The trial manager and facilitators are the main points of contact for safeguarding concerns and will all be unblinded throughout the study; the CI may be unblinded for any serious safeguarding concerns or adverse event. The trial steering committee (TSC), which includes a statistician and is acting jointly as the data monitoring committee (DMC), will be able to review unblinded data as part of a closed meeting where there are adverse events to consider. This will allow the trial analyst to remain blind during the primary analysis.

Group allocation will be stored in a separate database from baseline and follow-up data; a mimic randomisation and analysis write-up will be performed before unblinding after all data has been collected.

Methods: Data Collection, Management, and Analysis

Data Collection

Trial procedures by timepoint, according to SPIRIT guidelines, can be seen in Table 2. All quantitative measures at baseline and follow-up will be collected via Qualtrics. Interviews will be conducted remotely or face-to-face and audio transcribed verbatim. See secondary feasibility parameters for details on outcomes.

Table 2 Summary of trial procedures by key timepoint/visit.

	Screening	Consent	Baseline	Randomisation	Facilitated sessions	Follow-up (14 weeks)
Screening	x
Informed consent		x
Socio-demographic			x
Clinical characteristics			x
GNDS			x			x
PHQ-9			x			x
GAD-7			x			x
FFMQ			x			x
EQ-5D-5L			x			x
SFEQ			x			x
MSISQ-19			x			x
FSDS-R			x			x
DSC			x			x
NSSS-S			x			x
Self-reported adverse events						x
Randomisation				x
Facilitator report					x
Study adherence						x
TFA						x
Interviews						x
AD-SUS						x

Note. GNDS = Guy’s Neurological Disability Scale, PHQ-9 = the Patient Health Questionnaire-9, GAD-7 = Generalised Anxiety Disorders-7 questionnaire, FFMQ = Five Factor Mindfulness Questionnaire, EQ-5D-5L = EuroQol, SFEQ = Sexual Function Evaluation Questionnaire, MSISQ-19 = Multiple Sclerosis Intimacy and Sexuality Questionnaire, FSDS-R = Female Sexual Distress Scale-Revised, DSC = Dyadic Sexual Communication Scale, NSSS-S = New Sexual Satisfaction Scale – Short form, TFA = Theoretical Framework of Acceptability questionnaire, AD-SUS = adult service use schedule Study adherence questions will depend on trial arm (e.g., questions about material covered).

We will promote participant retention by consistent communication with participants. For example, we will call participants after allocation to ensure they understand the trial process/treatment manual use and send text message reminders of appointments. We will also attempt contact with those that have met eligibility criteria and have expressed interest but have not completed baseline data up to three times (email, phone, and text). At follow up, we will email participants a personal Qualtrics link to provide follow up data. If this has not been completed within a week, we will send a follow up email and call to ensure they have received this. If we are unable to reach participants via email, a member of the research team will call to fill out the questionnaire with them via telephone. We will be requesting follow up data from all participants at 14-weeks post randomisation, regardless of intervention adherence. For those that withdraw, we will attempt to complete an informal interview about reasons for withdrawal.

Participants who wish to partake in the interview study will be required to submit follow up data before the interview can take place. We will be offering a £20 Love2Shop voucher for participants who complete interviews; this is noted at the time of consent and on the information sheet.

Data Management

A central recruitment log will be securely stored to track potential participants who have given consent to contact. At the end of study, aggregate data (e.g., number screened vs recruited) will be collected and identifiable data will be deleted.

Participants will complete questionnaires electronically through Qualtrics If participants request paper copies of questionnaires, these will be mailed to them. When returned to the research team, these will be inputted into the Qualtrics form within 10 working days and then permanently destroyed.

Pseudonymised data, including group allocation, will be kept on REDCap [83, 84]. This will include study ID, dates of each key trial procedure, and trial arm. Identifiable information will only be stored on Qualtrics; this does not contain treatment allocation information. Both systems will be managed by the trial manager. After data collection has ended, Qualtrics data will be downloaded, and the online data will be permanently deleted. Identifiable information, with the exception of full post code, will be deleted once downloaded. After a deprivation index is calculated, the post code will also be deleted.

The quantitative data will be analysed by a statistician at King’s College London; they will also oversee database management. The trial manager will prepare reports on screening and recruitment and assess adherence. The statistician will complete the between-group analyses, scale completeness and psychometric assessments, and assessment of retention. For all quantitative analyses, the statistician will be blind to treatment allocation, as they will be using the dataset without allocation information.

The qualitative interview data will be transcribed and analysed by the trial manager with assistance from MSc Health Psychology and DClinPsy Students at King’s College London. Research data will be stored for 10 years after the study has ended, in line with King’s College London Guidelines. Research data will be deposited in the King’s Research Data Management system for long term preservation after the study has ended. Once the assigned retention period for the research has passed, the principal investigator and the research data management team at King’s College London will ensure the secure disposal of any confidential records. Hard copy data will not be archived; it will be destroyed after it has been transferred to the electronic database.

Analysis Plan

Descriptives

Descriptive statistics of patients screened, eligible, consented, and randomised will be computed, in line with CONSORT feasibility and pilot study guidelines [49]. Demographic descriptors and reasons for non-consent, exclusion, and drop out will be recorded and reported. Standard deviations will be computed for the outcome measures for each trial arm to estimate sample size for a future efficacy trial.

Progression Criteria

The key analyses undertaken will inform the decision to progress to a definitive trial based on the acceptability and feasibility analyses described below for the variables listed as primary outcomes. Progression will be judged via a commonly used traffic light system shown below (Table 3).

1.Green- feasible to proceed to a full RCT with the current trial design/procedures

2. Amber- modifications are required before proceeding to a definitive trial

3. Red- not feasible to proceed to a definitive trial.

Where all criteria are observed to be green, the recommendation will be that a full-scale trial is feasible without major modifications to the intended protocol (i.e., progress). Where there is a mixture of green and amber criteria, the recommendation will be that a full-scale trial is feasible only if modifications can be made to the relevant domain such that the green judgment is likely to be achieved. It is anticipated that these modifications will then need to be confirmed as part of an internal pilot for the full-scale trial. Where any of the criteria are observed to be red, the recommendation will be that a full-scale trial is not feasible (i.e., do not progress) and that major modifications to the protocol are needed and a further feasibility study likely to be necessary.

Table 3 Progression criteria for full-scale efficacy trial.

Progression criteria

Judgement

1. Eligibility: Meeting eligibility estimates (PwMS)

Green: If ≥33% of those screened meet eligibility criteria

Amber: If 10-32% of those screened meet eligibility criteria

Red: If <10% of those screened meet eligibility criteria

2. Recruitment: Meeting recruitment

targets (sites and PwMS)

Green: If two or more research sites recruited & ≥33% of eligible PwMS consent to take part in the trial.

Amber: If two or more research sites recruited & 5-32% of eligible PwMS consent to take part in the trial.

Red: If fewer than two research sites recruited OR two or more research sites recruited & <5% of eligible PwMS consent to take part in the trial.

3. Retention: Assessments made with satisfactory follow-up rates (PwMS)

Green: If ≥80% complete the 14-week post randomisation follow-up assessment

Amber: If 50-79% complete the 14-week post randomisation follow-up assessment

Red: If <50% complete the 14-week post randomisation follow-up assessment

4. Adherence: Completion of sufficient number of intervention sessions (PwMS)

Green: If ≥80% complete at least one session with a facilitator and at least 3 out of 6 self-guided sessions

Amber: If 50-79% complete at least one session with a facilitator and at least 3 out of 6 self-guided sessions

Red: If <50% complete at least one session with a facilitator and at least 3 out of 6 self-guided sessions

5. Acceptability: Rating of overall acceptability with intervention package (PwMS)

Green: If ≥80% of participants report finding the intervention package acceptable, i.e., select ‘agree’ or ‘strongly agree’ to the overall acceptability question. (Participants who drop out and do not provide data will be assumed to not be satisfied)

Amber: If 50-79% of participants report satisfaction with the intervention package

Red: If <50% of participants report satisfaction with the intervention package

Acceptability and Feasibility

Acceptability will be based on objective behavioural measures (e.g., dropout rates, attendance), self-report measures of attitudes towards the intervention, and qualitative reports on experiences with the intervention in addition to reasons for withdrawal[37]. These will be summarised as n(%) with 95%CIs. Using a mixed methods approach, we will determine intervention-specific challenges. This includes identifying the optimal number of sessions for both participants and HCPs, assessing HCP intervention fidelity, and overall satisfaction of participants and HCPs. Assessing issues related to recruitment and retention rates, suitability of selected outcome measures, and other intervention-specific issues will help us determine whether to proceed to a larger RCT. Such findings will inform the design of a future trial, such as primary outcome measure selection, sample size estimation, and protocol adaptations. Missing data will not be imputated.

Psychometrics of instruments

The psychometric quality of self-report instruments will be assessed for patient reported outcome measures. Given the noted criticism of using Cronbach’s alpha[85], we will assess reliability using McDonalds Omega, with a minimum accepted cut off of ω = 0.70 and a preference for values ω > 0.80. Reliability calculations will also be computed for sub-scales where relevant. Potential issues with floor and ceiling effects will be considered, particularly where these might impact responsiveness in the definitive trial. Individual items will be checked to ensure that there are no problematic items for this patient population. To assess face validity, participants will rate how well they feel each of the sex and intimacy related outcomes captured their SDs from ‘strongly agree’ to ‘strongly disagree’.

Quantitative Efficacy Analysis

Between-group differences at baseline and 14-week follow-up outcome assessments will be estimated with 95%CIs using linear regression models. Baseline level of the outcome and stratification factors will be adjusted for. Given the study is not powered to determine superiority of the intervention versus control, p-values for between group differences will not be reported and interpretation will be based on 95%CIs indicating the range of plausible effect sizes supported by the data. Standard deviations for the primary outcomes will be computed to estimate the sample size for a definitive trial.

Qualitative Acceptability and Process Analysis

The primary aim of the nested qualitative study will be to gather participants’ and facilitators’ experiences of standard-care, PIMS, and facilitators’ experiences of training. This will enable us identify barriers to engagement with and delivery of the intervention, and to make appropriate modifications to PIMS, facilitator training and trial design We will also explore barriers to participation by interviewing participants who drop out at different points (e.g., pre-intervention vs. mid-intervention). Data (minimum of 16 interviews with participants, and all facilitators) will be collected via semi-structured interviews (audio-recorded, telephone, or face-to-face) by members of the research team. Purposive maximum variation sampling will be employed to ensure participants are interviewed across a range of characteristics[86], in particular: age, gender, ethnicity, MS subtype, degree of intervention adherence, relationship status, and site. In line with recommendations for multi-site qualitative studies, we will aim to do 8-10 interviews per trial arm [87, 88]. Interviews will be transcribed verbatim and analysed using inductive thematic analysis using NVivo software. This form of qualitative analysis will identify recurrent themes and patterns from the interviews, and we will developing a coding manual.

Economic Data Analysis

An evaluation of the feasibility of data collection for a future economic evaluation in a full-scale trial will include: 1) asking facilitators to provide feedback on the feasibility of collecting service use data, 2) identifying and costing the resources associated with treatment-as-usual via service use data collection, 3) developing an estimate of intervention cost through collection of detailed information on the intervention and its implementation in practice, and 4) identifying and testing the sensitivity of the EQ-5D-5L quality of life measure, which is preferred by NICE for the calculation of QALYS, in this population.

Ethics and Dissemination

Ethical Approval

The trial will be conducted in compliance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki (1996), the principles of GCP and in accordance with all applicable regulatory requirements including but not limited to the UK policy framework for health and social care research and the Mental Capacity Act 2005. This trial received full ethical approval from the Health Research Authority, Harrow Research Ethics Committee reference 22/LO/0441, on 24^th June 2022.

Protocol Amendments

All protocol amendments will be communicated to relevant bodies, e.g., NHS trusts. Amendments will first be approved by the sponsor before submitting the amendment tool and any amended documents via the Integrated Research Application System (IRAS) amendment portal. The REC will review amendment if needed. All relevant NHS Trust R&Ds, the sponsor, and other parties (e.g., ISRCTN) will be notified.

Consent

Informed consent will be obtained from all participants (see Appendix A).

Confidentiality

Information regarding data confidentiality is included in the participant information sheet (see Appendix B). General Data Protection Regulation guidance (GDPR) will be followed for all data collection and analysis. Only the immediate healthcare team will have access to medical records and personal details, except in the event of an audit or inspection by regulatory authorities. No NHS records will be transferred. Data will be transferred via the KCL network (e.g., transferring data from Qualtrics to the database). Writing up the qualitative interview transcripts involves publication of direct quotations from participants. We will ensure this remains anonymous and no identifiable information is included in quotations.

Access to Data

The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study will be available from the CI on reasonable request. The CI [blinded for review] will be the contact to approve and send out copies of any data. Any data shared will be de-identified. Only data from participants who have consented to their data being shared/used in future research studies will be shared. A data file will be made at the end of the trial where the possibility of identification has been minimized and includes only data from those who have consented to this. Both quantitative and qualitative data may be requested. Data will only be shared for the purpose of research.

Ancillary and Post-trial Care

Given that intervention material may lead to participants reflecting on their overall wellbeing, there will be the potential for participants to experience some distress. Facilitators, who have all undergone safeguarding training, will be able to signpost them to relevant supports should this be requested. We provide additional information about mental health resources on both the baseline and follow-up questionnaires. We do not expect to deliver any additional post-trial care.

Dissemination Policy

Results will be fed back to participants and disseminated through public engagement events (arranged with our patient and public involvement working group), academic publications, and presented at international conferences. Study results will also be disseminated via public engagement events and through relevant MS charities/organisations, such as the MS Trust.

Given that the burden on sexual difficulties in MS are high, an evidence-based intervention that can be integrated into current health systems is needed. Research has found elements of mindfulness, psychosexual therapy, and physiotherapy are useful in managing sexual difficulties for PwMS [20]. However, previous interventions were mainly tested in women, required highly skilled practitioners, and lacked clear mechanisms for improvement. The PIMS intervention addresses these limitations by 1) having clear links between theory and the model of treatment, 2) being clinician supported and largely self-led, and 3) being applicable to people of all genders, sexual orientations, and relationship configurations. Specifically, PIMS combines MS-specific sex education, psychosexual therapy, and ACT in an 8-session manualised intervention. This intervention was co-developed alongside MS clinicians and PwMS to ensure balance between patient needs and clinician availability. Despite the potential benefits of PIMS, the feasibility is unknown.

We will use a randomised controlled feasibility trial, with a nested qualitative study, to assess the feasibility of the PIMS intervention. If feasible, data from this trial will help inform a definitive efficacy RCT, including determining primary outcome measures and adapting PIMS for implementability within existing healthcare systems.

ACT = Acceptance and Commitment Therapy

ADSUS = Adult Service Use Schedule

AE = Adverse events

AR = adverse reactions

CI = Chief Investigator

CONSORT = Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials

DMC = data monitoring committee

DSC = Dyadic Sexual Communication Scale

EBCD = experience-based co-design

EQ-5D-5L = EuroQol

FFMQ = Five Factor Mindfulness Questionnaire

FSDS-R = Female Sexual Distress Scale-Revised

GAD-7 = Generalised Anxiety Disorders-7 questionnaire

GCP = Good Clinical Practice

GDPR = General Data Protection Regulations

GNDS = Guy’s Neurological Disability Scale

GP = General Practitioner

HCPs = healthcare practitioners

IMPARTS = Integrating Mental and Physical healthcare: research, training and services

IRAS = Integrated Research Application System

KCL = King’s College London

KCTU = King’s Clinical Trial Unit

LTC = long-term condition

MS = Multiple Sclerosis

MSISQ-19 = Multiple Sclerosis Intimacy and Sexuality Questionnaire

NHS = National Health Service

NICE = National Institute for Health and Care Excellence

NIHR = National Institute for Health and Care Research

NSSS-S = New Sexual Satisfaction Scale – Short form

PACT = Purposeful, Actionable, Continuous, and Trackable

PHQ-9 = the Patient Health Questionnaire-9

PI = Principle Investigator

PIMS = Psychosexual Intervention for sexual difficulties in people with Multiple Sclerosis

PPI = Patient and Public Involvement

PSE = Psychosexual Education

PwMS = people with MS

QALYS = Quality Adjusted Life Years

QoL = quality of life

R&D = Research and Development

RCT = Randomized controlled trial

REC = Research Ethics Committee

RfPB = Research for Patient Benefit

SAE = serious adverse events

SAR = serious adverse reactions

SDs = Sexual difficulties

SFEQ = Sexual Function Evaluation Questionnaire

SLaM = South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust

SMART = Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, And Time-Bound

SPIRIT = Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials

TFA = Theoretical Framework of Acceptability questionnaire

TSC = trial steering committee

Ethics Approval and Consent to Participate

This trial received full ethical approval from the Health Research Authority, Harrow Research Ethics Committee reference 22/LO/0441, on 24^th June 2022.

Consent for Publication

Not applicable.

Availability of Data and Materials

The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study will be available from the CI on reasonable request. See ‘access to data’ section above.

Competing Interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Funding

This project is funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) under its Research for Patient Benefit (RfPB) Programme (Grant Reference Number NIHR202006). The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. [PI; redacted for review] is part funded by the Department of Health via the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Specialist Biomedical Research Centre for Mental Health award to the South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust (SLaM) and the Institute of Psychiatry at King's College London.

The funders and sponsors of this trial provided feedback on study design/methodology as part of the peer review and ethical approval process; they are not involved in data analysis/interpretation, writing of this report, or dissemination plans (aside from open access requirements).

Author’s Contributions

All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

AB: Conceptualisation, methodology, resource management, data curation, writing of original draft and review/editing, project administration, and funding acquisition (Co-I).

SN: Conceptualisation, methodology, data curation, writing of original draft and review/editing, statistical/methodological supervision, and funding acquisition (Co-I).

WS: Conceptualisation, methodology, writing of original draft and review/editing, clinical supervision and funding acquisition (clinical collaborator).

BB: Methodology, writing of original draft and review/editing, supervision for health economics analysis/planning, and funding acquisition (Co-I).

ES: Conceptualisation, methodology, review/editing of writing, supervision of recruitment, project administration (site PI, lead recruiter), funding acquisition (Co-I).

QR: Conceptualisation, methodology, writing of original draft and review/editing, supervision for methodology/intervention development, and funding acquisition (Co-I).

LC: Conceptualisation, methodology, review/editing of writing, supervision of recruitment, project administration (site PI, intervention delivery), and funding acquisition (clinical collaborator).

DM: Conceptualisation, methodology, review/editing of writing, project administration (recruitment, intervention delivery), and funding acquisition (clinical collaborator).

MK: Conceptualisation, methodology, review/editing of writing, and project administration (recruitment, intervention delivery).

RMM: Conceptualisation, methodology, resource management, data curation, writing of original draft and review/editing, project administration, lead supervision, and funding acquisition (funding CI).

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Megari, K., Quality of Life in Chronic Disease Patients. Health Psychol Res, 2013. 1(3): p. e27.
Sprangers, M.A.G., et al., Which chronic conditions are associated with better or poorer quality of life? Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2000. 53(9): p. 895-907.
Salari, N., et al., The global prevalence of sexual dysfunction in women with multiple sclerosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Neurological Sciences, 2023. 44(1): p. 59-66.
Tepavcevic, D., et al., The impact of sexual dysfunction on the quality of life measured by MSQoL-54 in patients with multiple sclerosis. Multiple Sclerosis Journal, 2008. 14(8): p. 1131-1136.
Zorzon, M., et al., Sexual dysfunction in multiple sclerosis: A 2-year follow-up study. Journal of the Neurological Sciences, 2001. 187(1): p. 1-5.
Lew-Starowicz, M. and R. Rola, Prevalence of sexual dysfunctions among women with multiple sclerosis. Sexuality and Disability, 2013. 31(2): p. 141-153.
Petersen, M., E. Kristensen, L. Giraldi, and A. Giraldi, Sexual dysfunction and mental health in patients with multiple sclerosis and epilepsy. BMC Neurology, 2020. 20(1): p. 41.
Schairer, L.C., et al., The impact of sexual dysfunction on health-related quality of life in people with multiple sclerosis. Multiple Sclerosis Journal, 2014. 20(5): p. 610-6.
Kisic-Tepavcevic, D., et al., Sexual dysfunction in multiple sclerosis: A 6-year follow-up study. Journal of the Neurological Sciences, 2015. 358(1-2): p. 317-23.
Stenager, E., E. Stenager, and K. Jensen, Sexual function in multiple sclerosis. A 5-year follow-up study. The Italian Journal of Neurological Sciences, 1996. 17(1): p. 67-69.
Bronner, G., E. Elran, J. Golomb, and A.D. Korczyn, Female sexuality in multiple sclerosis: the multidimensional nature of the problem and the intervention. Acta Neurologica Scandinavica, 2010. 121(5): p. 289-301.
Xiao, Y., J. Wang, and H. Luo, Sildenafil citrate for erectile dysfunction in patients with multiple sclerosis. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2012(4).
Fletcher, S.G., et al., Sexual dysfunction in patients with multiple sclerosis: A multidisciplinary approach to evaluation and management. Nature Clinical Practice Urology, 2009. 6(2): p. 96-107.
Matthews, V. and S. Davies, Sexual dysfunction in people with long-term neurological conditions. Nursing Standard, 2009. 23(50): p. 48.
Günzler, C. and M.M. Berner, Efficacy of psychosocial interventions in men and women with sexual dysfunctions—A systematic review of controlled clinical trials. The Journal of Sexual Medicine, 2012. 9(12): p. 3108-3125.
Byrne, M., et al., Sexual counselling for sexual problems in patients with cardiovascular disease. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2016(2).
Candy, B., et al., Interventions for sexual dysfunction following treatments for cancer in women. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2016(2).
Melnik, T., B. Soares, and A.G. Nasello, Psychosocial interventions for erectile dysfunction. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2007(3).
Banbury, S., J. Lusher, S. Snuggs, and C. Chandler, Mindfulness-based therapies for men and women with sexual dysfunction: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 2021: p. No Pagination Specified-No Pagination Specified.
Esteve-Ríos, A., S. Garcia-Sanjuan, A. Oliver-Roig, and M.J. Cabañero-Martínez, Effectiveness of interventions aimed at improving the sexuality of women with multiple sclerosis: A systematic review. Clinical Rehabilitation, 2020. 34(4): p. 438-449.
Mosalanejad, F., A. Afrasiabifar, and M. Zoladl, Investigating the combined effect of pelvic floor muscle exercise and mindfulness on sexual function in women with multiple sclerosis: A randomized controlled trial. Clinical Rehabilitation, 2018. 32(10): p. 1340-1347.
Afshari, P., et al., The effect of pelvic floor muscle exercises on sexual function in women with multiple sclerosis: A pre – post intervention clinical trial. Family Medicine & Primary Care Review, 2020. 22(2): p. 179-182.
Altunan, B., et al., The effect of pelvic floor exercise program on incontinence and sexual dysfunction in multiple sclerosis patients. International Urology and Nephrology, 2021. 53(6): p. 1059-1065.
Arshi, M., et al., Group social work intervention enhances the sexual satisfaction of women with multiple sclerosis: A randomized controlled trial study. Social Work in Health Care, 2020. 59(5): p. 322-333.
Ghasemi, V., et al., The effect of sexual health promotion package on sexual life in women with multiple sclerosis: Designed based on the results of a mixed method study. Sexuality and Disability, 2021.
Jamalianfar, F., et al., The effectiveness of ‘good-enough sex model’ on sexual satisfaction and sexual intimacy in women with multiple sclerosis: A randomized trail. Sexuality and Disability, 2021. 39(3): p. 507-519.
Kazemi, Z., M.S. Mousavi, and M. Etemadifar, The effect of counseling based on the PLISSIT model on sexual quality of life of married women with multiple sclerosis referring to MS center in 2019: A randomized, controlled trial. Archives of Women's Mental Health, 2021. 24(3): p. 437-444.
Abdullahi, H., R.O. Jafojo, and O. Udofia, Paraphilia among undergraduates in a Nigerian university. Sexual Addiction & Compulsivity, 2015. 22(3): p. 249-257.
Polat Dunya, C., et al., Evaluating the effects of transcutaneous tibial nerve stimulation or pelvic floor muscle training on sexual dysfunction in female multiple sclerosis patients reporting overactive bladder. Neurourology and Urodynamics, 2021. 40(6): p. 1661-1669.
Sadeghi Bahmani, D., et al., Aquatic exercising may improve sexual function in females with multiple sclerosis - An exploratory study. Multiple Sclerosis and Related Disorders, 2020. 43: p. 102106.
Sazesh, S., et al., Effectiveness of group counseling with a client-centered approach based on the gather principles on sexual satisfaction in women with multiple sclerosis: A randomized clinical trial. Iranian Journal of Medical Sciences, 2021. 46(2): p. 103-111.
Hocaloski, S., et al., A mindfulness psychoeducational group intervention targeting sexual adjustment for women with multiple sclerosis and spinal cord injury: A pilot study. Sexuality and Disability, 2016. 34(2): p. 183-198.
Brotto, L.A. and J.R. Heiman, Mindfulness in sex therapy: Applications for women with sexual difficulties following gynecologic cancer. Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 2007. 22(1): p. 3-11.
Janssen, E., W. Everaerd, M. Spiering, and J. Janssen, Automatic processes and the appraisal of sexual stimuli: Toward an information processing model of sexual arousal. The Journal of Sex Research, 2000. 37(1): p. 8-23.
Toates, F., An integrative theoretical framework for understanding sexual motivation, arousal, and behavior. The Journal of Sex Research, 2009. 46(2-3): p. 168-193.
Sekhon, M., M. Cartwright, and J.J. Francis, Development of a theory-informed questionnaire to assess the acceptability of healthcare interventions. BMC Health Services Research, 2022. 22(1): p. 279.
Sekhon, M., M. Cartwright, and J.J. Francis, Acceptability of health care interventions: A theoretical framework and proposed research agenda. British Journal of Health Psychology, 2018.
Foley, F.W., Sexuality and intimacy in multiple sclerosis in Multiple sclerosis: A guide for families, R.C. Kalb, Editor. 2006, Demos Medical Publishing: New York: NY. p. 53-80.
Brotto, L.A., et al., A randomized trial comparing group mindfulness-based cognitive therapy with group supportive sex education and therapy for the treatment of female sexual interest/arousal disorder. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 2021. 89(7): p. 626-639.
Donetto, S., V. Tsianakas, and G. Robert, Using Experience-based Co-design (EBCD) to improve the quality of healthcare: mapping where we are now and establishing future directions. London: King’s College London, 2014.
Graham, C.D., J. Gouick, C. Krahé, and D. Gillanders, A systematic review of the use of Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) in chronic disease and long-term conditions. Clinical Psychology Review, 2016. 46: p. 46-58.
Weiner, L. and C. Avery-Clark, Sensate Focus: clarifying the Masters and Johnson's model. Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 2014. 29(3): p. 307-319.
Swann, C., et al., The (over)use of SMART goals for physical activity promotion: A narrative review and critique. Health Psychology Review, 2023. 17(2): p. 211-226.
Locke, E.A. and G.P. Latham, Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist, 2002. 57(9): p. 705-717.
NICE. Multiple sclerosis in adults: Management. Clinical Guidance 2019; Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg186/chapter/Recommendations.
Multiple Sclerosis Society. Sex, intimacy & relationships. 2015; Available from: https://www.mssociety.org.uk/sites/default/files/2020-08/Sex%20intimacy%20and%20relationships%20booklet%20MSS.pdf.
Multiple Sclerosis Trust. Sexual problems for men with MS. 2019; Available from: https://mstrust.org.uk/a-z/sexual-problems-men-ms.
Multiple Sclerosis Trust. Sexual problems for women with MS. 2019; Available from: https://mstrust.org.uk/a-z/sexual-problems-women-ms.
Eldridge, S.M., et al., CONSORT 2010 statement: Extension to randomised pilot and feasibility trials. BMJ, 2016. 355.
Sekhon, M., M. Cartwright, and J.J. Francis, Acceptability of healthcare interventions: an overview of reviews and development of a theoretical framework. BMC Health Services Research, 2017. 17(1): p. 88.
Mitchell, K.R., et al., The Sexual Function Evaluation Questionnaire (SFEQ) to Evaluate Effectiveness of Treatment for Sexual Difficulties: Development and Validation in a Clinical Sample. The Journal of Sex Research, 2021: p. 1-9.
Sanders, A.S., F.W. Foley, N.G. LaRocca, and V. Zemon, The multiple sclerosis intimacy and sexuality questionnaire-19 (MSISQ-19). Sexuality and Disability, 2000. 18(1): p. 3-26.
Foley, F.W., et al., The Multiple Sclerosis Intimacy and Sexuality Questionnaire — re-validation and development of a 15-item version with a large US sample. Multiple Sclerosis Journal, 2013. 19(9): p. 1197-1203.
Mohammadi, K., P. Rahnama, A. Montazeri, and F.W. Foley, The Multiple Sclerosis Intimacy and Sexuality Questionnaire‐19: Reliability, Validity, and Factor Structure of the Persian Version. The Journal of Sexual Medicine, 2014. 11(9): p. 2225-2231.
Carotenuto, A., et al., Validation of the Italian version of the Multiple Sclerosis Intimacy and Sexuality Questionnaire-19. Neurological Sciences, 2021. 42(7): p. 2903-2910.
Tzitzika, M., C.C. Daoultzis, C. Konstantinidis, and P. Kordoutis, The Multiple Sclerosis Intimacy and Sexuality Questionnaire (MSISQ-15): Validation and Cross-cultural Adaptation of the Greek Version in MS Patients. Sexuality and Disability, 2021. 39(3): p. 495-506.
DeRogatis, L., et al., Validation of the Female Sexual Distress Scale-Revised for Assessing Distress in Women with Hypoactive Sexual Desire Disorder. The Journal of Sexual Medicine, 2008. 5(2): p. 357-364.
Derogatis, L.R., et al., The Female Sexual Distress Scale (FSDS): Initial validation of a standardized scale for assessment of sexually related personal distress in women. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 2002. 28(4): p. 317-330.
Santos-Iglesias, P., B. Mohamed, A. Danko, and L.M. Walker, Psychometric validation of the Female Sexual Distress Scale in male samples. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 2018. 47(6): p. 1733-1743.
Štulhofer, A., V. Buško, and P. Brouillard, Development and Bicultural Validation of the New Sexual Satisfaction Scale. The Journal of Sex Research, 2010. 47(4): p. 257-268.
Stulhofer, A., V. Buško, and P. Brouillard, The New Sexual Satisfaction Scale and its short form. Handbook of sexuality-related measures, 2011: p. 530-532.
Mark, K.P., et al., A Psychometric Comparison of Three Scales and a Single-Item Measure to Assess Sexual Satisfaction. The Journal of Sex Research, 2014. 51(2): p. 159-169.
Strizzi, J., I. Fernández-Agis, R. Alarcón-Rodríguez, and T. Parrón-Carreño, Adaptation of the New Sexual Satisfaction Scale-Short Form Into Spanish. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 2016. 42(7): p. 579-588.
Sharrack, B. and R.A. Hughes, The Guy's Neurological Disability Scale (GNDS): A new disability measure for multiple sclerosis. Multiple Sclerosis Journal, 1999. 5(4): p. 223-233.
Fraser, C. and J. McGurl, Psychometric testing of the Americanized version of the Guy's Neurological Disability Scale. Journal of Neuroscience Nursing, 2007. 39(1): p. 13-20.
Rossier, P. and D.T. Wade, The Guy's Neurological Disability Scale in patients with multiple sclerosis: A clinical evaluation of its reliability and validity. Clinical Rehabilitation, 2002. 16(1): p. 75-95.
Herdman, M., et al., Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Quality of Life Research, 2011. 20(10): p. 1727-1736.
Pickard, A.S., et al., Psychometric comparison of the standard EQ-5D to a 5 level version in cancer patients. Medical Care, 2007. 45(3): p. 259-263.
Pickard, A.S., et al., Evaluating equivalency between response systems: Application of the rasch model to a 3-Level and 5-Level EQ-5D. Medical Care, 2007. 45(9): p. 812-819.
Kroenke, K., R.L. Spitzer, and J.B.W. Williams, The PHQ-9. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 2001. 16(9): p. 606-613.
Spitzer, R.L., K. Kroenke, J.B.W. Williams, and B. Löwe, A Brief Measure for Assessing Generalized Anxiety Disorder: The GAD-7. Archives of Internal Medicine, 2006. 166(10): p. 1092-1097.
Khaddouma, A., K.C. Gordon, and J. Bolden, Zen and the art of sex: Examining associations among mindfulness, sexual satisfaction, and relationship satisfaction in dating relationships. Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 2015. 30(2): p. 268-285.
Leavitt, C.E., et al., Linking Sexual Mindfulness to Mixed-Sex Couples’ Relational Flourishing, Sexual Harmony, and Orgasm. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 2021. 50(6): p. 2589-2602.
Baer, R.A., et al., Using Self-Report Assessment Methods to Explore Facets of Mindfulness. Assessment, 2006. 13(1): p. 27-45.
de Bruin, E.I., et al., Psychometric Properties of the Five Facets Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ) in a Meditating and a Non-meditating Sample. Assessment, 2012. 19(2): p. 187-197.
Aguado, J., et al., Bifactor analysis and construct validity of the five facet mindfulness questionnaire (FFMQ) in non-clinical Spanish samples. Frontiers in Psychology, 2015. 6.
Veehof, M.M., et al., Psychometric properties of the Dutch Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ) in patients with fibromyalgia. Clinical Rheumatology, 2011. 30(8): p. 1045-1054.
Catania, J.A., Dyadic sexual communication scale, in Handbook of sexuality-related measures. 2013, Routledge. p. 152-164.
Alizadeh, S., A. Ebadi, N. Kariman, and G. Ozgoli, Dyadic sexual communication scale: psychometrics properties and translation of the Persian version. Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 2020. 35(1): p. 103-114.
Rancourt, K.M., N.O. Rosen, S. Bergeron, and L.J. Nealis, Talking About Sex When Sex Is Painful: Dyadic Sexual Communication Is Associated With Women’s Pain, and Couples’ Sexual and Psychological Outcomes in Provoked Vestibulodynia. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 2016. 45(8): p. 1933-1944.
Teare, M.D., et al., Sample size requirements to estimate key design parameters from external pilot randomised controlled trials: A simulation study. Trials, 2014. 15(1): p. 1-13.
Office for National Statistics. The 2021 Census: Gender identity topic report 2021; Available from: file:///C:/Users/k1759301/Downloads/topicreport03genderidentity.pdf.
Harris, P.A., et al., The REDCap consortium: Building an international community of software platform partners. Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 2019. 95: p. 103208.
Harris, P.A., et al., Research electronic data capture (REDCap)—A metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 2009. 42(2): p. 377-381.
Hayes, A.F. and J.J. Coutts, Use Omega Rather than Cronbach’s Alpha for Estimating Reliability. But…. Communication Methods and Measures, 2020. 14(1): p. 1-24.
Palinkas, L.A., et al., Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 2015. 42(5): p. 533-544.
Vasileiou, K., J. Barnett, S. Thorpe, and T. Young, Characterising and justifying sample size sufficiency in interview-based studies: Systematic analysis of qualitative health research over a 15-year period. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 2018. 18(1): p. 1-18.
Hagaman, A.K. and A. Wutich, How Many Interviews Are Enough to Identify Metathemes in Multisited and Cross-cultural Research? Another Perspective on Guest, Bunce, and Johnson’s (2006) Landmark Study. Field Methods, 2017. 29(1): p. 23-41.
Hotopf, M. Integrating Mental and Physical healthcare: Research Training and Services (IMPARTS). [cited 2024; Available from: https://www.kcl.ac.uk/research/integrating-mental-and-physical-healthcare-research-training-and-services-imparts.

Appendix.docx

Protocol for a randomised controlled feasibility trial of an integrated psychosexual intervention for sexual difficulties in people with Multiple Sclerosis: the PIMS trial

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

Background and Rationale

Methods: Participants, Intervention, and Outcomes

Discussion

Abbreviations

Declarations

References

Supplementary Files

Status:

Version 1