INTRODUCTION: Few couple-focused interventions have been developed to improve distress and relationship outcomes among men diagnosed with localized prostate cancer and their partners. AIMS: We examined the effects of a five-session Intimacy-Enhancing Therapy (IET) vs. Usual Care (UC) on the psychological and relationship functioning of men diagnosed with localized prostate cancer and their partners. Pre-intervention levels of psychological and relationship functioning were evaluated as moderators of intervention effects. METHODS:Seventy-one survivors and their partners completed a baseline survey and were subsequently randomly assigned to receive five sessions of IET or UC (no treatment). Eight weeks after the baseline assessment, a follow-up survey was administered to survivor and partner. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Distress, well-being, relationship satisfaction, relationship intimacy, and communication were investigated as the main outcomes. RESULTS:IET effects were largely moderated by pre-intervention psychosocial and relationship factors. Those survivors who had higher levels of cancer concerns at pretreatment had significantly reduced concerns following IET. Similar moderating effects for pre-intervention levels were reported for the effects of IET on self-disclosure, perceived partner disclosure, and perceived partner responsiveness. Among partners beginning the intervention with higher cancer-specific distress, lower marital satisfaction, lower intimacy, and poorer communication, IET improved these outcomes. CONCLUSIONS:IET had a marginally significant main effect upon survivor well-being but was effective among couples with fewer personal and relationship resources. Subsequent research is needed to replicate these findings with a larger sample and a longer follow-up.
RCT Entities:
INTRODUCTION: Few couple-focused interventions have been developed to improve distress and relationship outcomes among men diagnosed with localized prostate cancer and their partners. AIMS: We examined the effects of a five-session Intimacy-Enhancing Therapy (IET) vs. Usual Care (UC) on the psychological and relationship functioning of men diagnosed with localized prostate cancer and their partners. Pre-intervention levels of psychological and relationship functioning were evaluated as moderators of intervention effects. METHODS: Seventy-one survivors and their partners completed a baseline survey and were subsequently randomly assigned to receive five sessions of IET or UC (no treatment). Eight weeks after the baseline assessment, a follow-up survey was administered to survivor and partner. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Distress, well-being, relationship satisfaction, relationship intimacy, and communication were investigated as the main outcomes. RESULTS:IET effects were largely moderated by pre-intervention psychosocial and relationship factors. Those survivors who had higher levels of cancer concerns at pretreatment had significantly reduced concerns following IET. Similar moderating effects for pre-intervention levels were reported for the effects of IET on self-disclosure, perceived partner disclosure, and perceived partner responsiveness. Among partners beginning the intervention with higher cancer-specific distress, lower marital satisfaction, lower intimacy, and poorer communication, IET improved these outcomes. CONCLUSIONS:IET had a marginally significant main effect upon survivor well-being but was effective among couples with fewer personal and relationship resources. Subsequent research is needed to replicate these findings with a larger sample and a longer follow-up.
Authors: Martin G Sanda; Rodney L Dunn; Jeff Michalski; Howard M Sandler; Laurel Northouse; Larry Hembroff; Xihong Lin; Thomas K Greenfield; Mark S Litwin; Christopher S Saigal; Arul Mahadevan; Eric Klein; Adam Kibel; Louis L Pisters; Deborah Kuban; Irving Kaplan; David Wood; Jay Ciezki; Nikhil Shah; John T Wei Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2008-03-20 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: A D Seftel; J Buvat; S E Althof; J G McMurray; H L Zeigler; P R Burns; D G Wong Journal: Int J Impot Res Date: 2009-06-18 Impact factor: 2.896
Authors: Richard Sadovsky; Rosemary Basson; Michael Krychman; Antonio Martin Morales; Leslie Schover; Run Wang; Luca Incrocci Journal: J Sex Med Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 3.802
Authors: Ivan R Molton; Scott D Siegel; Frank J Penedo; Jason R Dahn; David Kinsinger; Lara N Traeger; Charles S Carver; Biing-Jiun Shen; Mahendra Kumar; Neil Schneiderman; Michael H Antoni Journal: J Psychosom Res Date: 2008-05 Impact factor: 3.006
Authors: Joan M Griffin; Laura A Meis; Roderick MacDonald; Nancy Greer; Agnes Jensen; Indulis Rutks; Timothy J Wilt Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2014-05-20 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: A Matthew; N Lutzky-Cohen; L Jamnicky; K Currie; A Gentile; D Santa Mina; N Fleshner; A Finelli; R Hamilton; G Kulkarni; M Jewett; A Zlotta; J Trachtenberg; Z Yang; D Elterman Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2018-12-01 Impact factor: 3.677