article · F1000Research
Background: Body image disturbances in breast and gynecological cancer survivors involve complex interrelationships between physical changes, sexuality, and self-esteem. Existing tools inadequately capture these multidimensional, cancer-specific concerns. This study developed and validated a Four-Dimensional Body Image Score for women with breast and gynecological Cancers (4D-BISC). Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted (March-April 2025) across six Tunisian healthcare facilities. Women presenting with gynecological or breast cancers were included. Participants completed the 16-item questionnaire (5-point Likert scale) derived from validated scales (the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI) and the Body Esteem Scale for Adolescents and Adults (BESAA)) and cancer-specific items. Psychometric properties were assessed via exploratory/confirmatory factor analyses (EFA/CFA), Cronbach's alpha (α), and correlations with established scales (FSFI, BESAA). Results: In total, 101 participants were included. CFA confirmed a robust 4-factor structure: Appearance Concerns (α=0.704), Social Exposure (α=0.737), Sexual Desirability (α=0.918) and Self-Esteem (α=0.786). The global score demonstrated excellent reliability. Strong correlations emerged between body image factors and sexual function (e.g., Sexual Desirability and sexual desire: p=0.706 and p<0.001 respectively). Breast cancer patients reported significantly worse body image globally (p=0.003), particularly in social exposure (median=26.7) and sexual desirability (median=30). Marital status and socioeconomic status significantly influenced sexuality-related concerns and self-esteem (p<0.05). Conclusion: The 4D-BISC is a psychometrically valid tool capturing cancer-specific body image dimensions. It highlights critical vulnerabilities among breast and gynecological cancers cancer patients- and provides a foundation for targeted psychosocial interventions.
This page summarises published work. The authoritative version sits with the publisher.
DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.169080.1
Is something wrong with this record? Report it or request removal.
Discussion
Have you built on this work, tried to replicate it, or seen it applied in practice? Share what you know. Verified researchers and MARATTO™ domain experts can open a discussion, and any member can reply. Contributions are reviewed before they appear.
No discussion yet. Open the first thread.
New to MARATTO™? Create a free account.