Show simple item record

Five‐year outcomes from a randomised controlled trial of a couples‐based intervention for men with localised prostate cancer

dc.contributor.authorChambers, Suzanne K.
dc.contributor.authorOcchipinti, Stefano
dc.contributor.authorStiller, Anna
dc.contributor.authorZajdlewicz, Leah
dc.contributor.authorNielsen, Lisa
dc.contributor.authorWittman, Daniela
dc.contributor.authorOliffe, John L.
dc.contributor.authorRalph, Nicholas
dc.contributor.authorDunn, Jeff
dc.date.accessioned2019-05-31T18:24:50Z
dc.date.available2020-06-01T14:50:01Zen
dc.date.issued2019-04
dc.identifier.citationChambers, Suzanne K.; Occhipinti, Stefano; Stiller, Anna; Zajdlewicz, Leah; Nielsen, Lisa; Wittman, Daniela; Oliffe, John L.; Ralph, Nicholas; Dunn, Jeff (2019). "Five‐year outcomes from a randomised controlled trial of a couples‐based intervention for men with localised prostate cancer." Psycho‐Oncology 28(4): 775-783.
dc.identifier.issn1057-9249
dc.identifier.issn1099-1611
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/149201
dc.description.abstractObjectivePsychosexual morbidity is common after prostate cancer treatment, however, long‐term prospective research is limited. We report 5‐year outcomes from a couples‐based intervention in dyads with men treated for localised prostate cancer with surgery.MethodsA randomised controlled trial was conducted involving 189 heterosexual couples, where the man received a radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. The trial groups were peer support vs. nurse counselling versus usual care. Primary outcomes were sexual adjustment, unmet sexual supportive care needs, masculine self‐esteem, marital satisfaction, and utilisation of erectile aids at 2‐, 3‐, 4‐ and 5‐year follow‐up.ResultsThe effects of the interventions varied across the primary outcomes. Partners in the peer group had higher sexual adjustment than those in the usual care and nurses group at 2 and 3 years (P = 0.002‐0.035). Men in usual care had lower unmet sexual supportive care needs than men in the peer and nurse groups (P = 0.001; P = 0.01) at 3 years. Women in usual care had lower sexual supportive care needs than women in the peer group at 2 and 3 years (P = 0.038; P = 0.001). Men in the peer and nurse group utilised sexual aids more than men in usual care; at 5 years 54% of usual care men versus 87% of men in peer support and 80% of men in the nurse group.ConclusionPeer and nurse‐administered psychosexual interventions have potential for increasing men’s adherence to treatments for erectile dysfunction. Optimal effects may be achieved through an integrated approach applying these modes of support.
dc.publisherWiley Periodicals, Inc.
dc.publisherCentre for Health Research and Psycho‐Oncology
dc.subject.otherpsychosexual adjustment
dc.subject.othercouples
dc.subject.otherpartners
dc.subject.otherpeer‐support
dc.subject.otherprostate cancer
dc.titleFive‐year outcomes from a randomised controlled trial of a couples‐based intervention for men with localised prostate cancer
dc.typeArticle
dc.rights.robotsIndexNoFollow
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelHematology and Oncology
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelHealth Sciences
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Reviewed
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/149201/1/pon5019.pdf
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/149201/2/pon5019_am.pdf
dc.identifier.doi10.1002/pon.5019
dc.identifier.sourcePsycho‐Oncology
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMiller RS, Lefcourt HM. The assessment of social intimacy. J Pers Assess. 1982; 46 ( 5 ): 514 ‐ 518.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceChambers SK, Occhipinti S, Schover L, et al. A randomised controlled trial of a couples‐based sexuality intervention for men with localised prostate cancer and their female partners. Psychooncology. 2015; 24 ( 7 ): 748 ‐ 756.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceTitta M, Tavolini IM, Dal Moro F, Cisternino A, Bassi P. Sexual counseling improved erectile rehabilitation after non‐nerve‐sparing radical retropubic prostatectomy or cystectomy—results of a randomized prospective study. J Sex Med. 2006; 3 ( 2 ): 267 ‐ 273.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHyde MK, Zajdlewicz L, Wootten AC, et al. Medical help‐seeking for sexual concerns in prostate cancer survivors. Sex Med. 2016; 4 ( 1 ): e7 ‐ e17.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAltman DG, Schulz KF, Moher D, et al. The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med. 2001; 134 ( 8 ): 663 ‐ 694.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMartire LM, Schulz R, Helgeson VS, Small BJ, Saghafi EM. Review and meta‐analysis of couple‐oriented interventions for chronic illness. Ann Behav Med. 2010; 40 ( 3 ): 325 ‐ 342.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceStory LB, Bradbury TN. Understanding marriage and stress: essential questions and challenges. Clin Psychol Rev. 2004; 23 ( 8 ): 1139 ‐ 1162.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRosen RC, Riley A, Wagner G, Osterloh IH, Kirkpatrick J, Mishra A. The international index of erectile function (IIEF): a multidimensional scale for assessment of erectile dysfunction. Urology. 1997; 49 ( 6 ): 822 ‐ 830.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRosen R, Brown C, Heiman J, et al. The female sexual function index (FSFI): a multidimensional self‐report instrument for the assessment of female sexual function. J Sex Marital Ther. 2000; 26 ( 2 ): 191 ‐ 208.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLatini DM, Penson DF, Colwell HH, et al. Psychological impact of erectile dysfunction: validation of a new health related quality of life measure for patients with erectile dysfunction. J Urol. 2002; 168 ( 5 ): 2086 ‐ 2091.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMcElduff P, Boyes A, Zucca A, Girgis A. The Supportive Care Needs Survey: A Guide to Administration, Scoring and Analysis. Newcastle, Australia: Centre for Health Research and Psycho‐Oncology; 2004.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceClark JA, Bokhour BG, Inui TS, Silliman RA, Talcott JA. Measuring patients’ perceptions of the outcomes of treatment for early prostate cancer. Med Care. 2003; 41 ( 8 ): 923 ‐ 936.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBusby DM, Christensen C, Crane DR, Larson JH. A revision of the dyadic adjustment scale for use with distressed and nondistressed couples: construct hierarchy and multidimensional scales. J Marital Fam Ther. 1995; 21 ( 3 ): 289 ‐ 308.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCrane DR, Middleton R, Bean RA. Establishing criterion scores for the Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale and the Revised Dyadic Adjustment Scale. Am J Fam Ther. 2000; 28: 53 ‐ 60.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSchover LR, Fouladi RT, Warneke CL, et al. The use of treatments for erectile dysfunction among survivors of prostate carcinoma. Cancer. 2002; 95 ( 11 ): 2397 ‐ 2407.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceYanez B, McGinty HL, Mohr DC, et al. Feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary efficacy of a technology‐assisted psychosocial intervention for racially diverse men with advanced prostate cancer. Cancer. 2015; 121 ( 24 ): 4407 ‐ 4415.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMcCullough AR. Rehabilitation of erectile function following radical prostatectomy. Asian J Androl. 2008; 10 ( 1 ): 61 ‐ 74.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHakky TS, Baumgarten AS, Parker J, et al. Penile rehabilitation: the evolutionary concept in the management of erectile dysfunction. Curr Urol Rep. 2014; 15 ( 4 ): 393.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWalker LM, Wassersug RJ, Robinson JW. Psychosocial perspectives on sexual recovery after prostate cancer treatment. Nat Rev Urol. 2015; 12 ( 3 ): 167 ‐ 176.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceNelson CJ, Mulhall JP, Roth AJ. The association between erectile dysfunction and depressive symptoms in men treated for prostate cancer. J Sex Med. 2011; 8 ( 2 ): 560 ‐ 566.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRaphaelis S, Kobleder A, Mayer H, Senn B. Effectiveness, structure, and content of nurse counseling in gynecologic oncology: a systematic review. BMC Nurs. 2017; 16 ( 1 ): 43.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDunn J, Steginga SK, Millichap D, Rosoman N. A review of peer support in the context of cancer. J Psychosoc Oncol. 2003; 21 ( 2 ): 55 ‐ 67.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSteginga SK, Pinnock C, Gardner M, Gardiner RA, Dunn J. Evaluating peer support for prostate cancer: the prostate cancer peer support inventory. BJU Int. 2005; 95 ( 1 ): 46 ‐ 50.
dc.identifier.citedreferencePaich K, Dunn R, Skolarus T, et al. Preparing patients and partners for recovery from the side effects of prostate cancer surgery: a group approach. Urology. 2016; 88: 36 ‐ 42.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLee TK, Handy AB, Kwan W, et al. Impact of prostate cancer treatment on the sexual quality of life for men‐who‐have‐sex‐with‐men. J Sex Med. 2015; 12 ( 12 ): 2378 ‐ 2386.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWittmann D, He C, Mitchell S, et al. A one‐day couple group intervention to enhance sexual recovery for surgically treated men with prostate cancer and their partners: a pilot study. Urol Nurs. 2013; 33 ( 3 ): 140 ‐ 147.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDunn J, Casey C, Sandoe D, et al. Advocacy, support and survivorship in prostate cancer. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2017; e‐pub ahead of print Feb 01; doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/ecc.12644; 27 ( 2 ): e12644.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBober SL, Varela VS. Sexuality in adult cancer survivors: challenges and intervention. J Clin Oncol. 2012; 30 ( 30 ): 3712 ‐ 3719.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceZelefsky MJ, Eid JF. Elucidating the etiology of erectile dysfunction after definitive therapy for prostatic cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1998; 40 ( 1 ): 129 ‐ 133.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHanly N, Mireskandari S, Juraskova I. The struggle towards “the new Normal”: a qualitative insight into psychosexual adjustment to prostate cancer. BMC Urol. 2014; 14 ( 1 ): 56.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSoloway CT, Soloway MS, Kim SS, Kava BR. Sexual, psychological and dyadic qualities of the prostate cancer “couple”. BJU Int. 2005; 95 ( 6 ): 780 ‐ 785.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKing AJ, Evans M, Moore TH, et al. Prostate cancer and supportive care: a systematic review and qualitative synthesis of men’s experiences and unmet needs. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2015; e‐pub ahead of print Jan 29; doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/ecc.12286; 24 ( 5 ): 618 ‐ 634.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGraham J, Kirkbride P, Cann K, Hasler E, Prettyjohns M. Prostate cancer: summary of updated NICE guidance. BMJ. 2014; 348 ( jan08 1 ): f7524.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceO’Brien R, Rose PW, Campbell C, et al. Experiences of follow‐up after treatment in patients with prostate cancer: a qualitative study. BJU Int. 2010; 106 ( 7 ): 998 ‐ 1003.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceForbat L, White I, Marshall‐Lucette S, Kelly D. Discussing the sexual consequences of treatment in radiotherapy and urology consultations with couples affected by prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2012; 109 ( 1 ): 98 ‐ 103.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceChambers SK, Ng SK, Baade P, et al. Trajectories of quality of life, life satisfaction, and psychological adjustment after prostate cancer. Psychooncology. 2017; 26 ( 10 ): 1576 ‐ 1585.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceChambers SK, Schover L, Nielsen L, et al. Couple distress after localised prostate cancer. Support Care Cancer. 2013; 21 ( 11 ): 2967 ‐ 2976.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHyde MK, Legg M, Occhipinti S, et al. Predictors of long‐term distress in female partners of men diagnosed with prostate cancer. Psychooncology. 2018; 27 ( 3 ): 946 ‐ 954.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWatts S, Leydon G, Birch B, et al. Depression and anxiety in prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta‐analysis of prevalence rates. BMJ Open. 2014; 4 ( 3 ): e003901.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceChambers S, Hyde M, Smith D, et al. A systematic review of psychological interventions for prostate cancer survivors and their partners: clinical and research implications. Psychooncology. 2017; 26 ( 7 ): 873 ‐ 913.
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.