PURPOSE: Up to 38% of prostate cancer survivors experience significant psychological distress; 6-16% are diagnosed with depression or anxiety disorders. Support from a relationship partner can ameliorate psychological distress, but many studies treat relationship status as a dichotomous predictor without accounting for level of support provided by the partner. METHODS: The current study is a secondary analysis of a sample of 292 prostate cancer survivors recruited by nine Community Clinical Oncology Program (CCOP) sites around the USA to a larger randomized controlled trial. Self-reported distress was measured at a baseline visit using the Profile of Mood States (POMS) and partner support was measured using the Social Network and Support Assessment (SNSA). Post hoc groups consisting of unmarried survivors, married survivors with low partner support (SNSA scores below the median), and married survivors with high partner support (SNSA scores above the median) were compared on distress using univariate and analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) analyses. RESULTS: Married prostate cancer survivors with high partner support reported significantly lower levels of psychological distress than the other two groups on the total distress scale (16.20-19.19 points lower, p < 0.001). After adjusting for multiple comparisons, this pattern was also seen for subscales of distress. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the importance of assessing both partner support and marital status when evaluating a survivor's psychosocial functioning and support network. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Assessing support could improve understanding of the association between partner support and prostate cancer survivors' psychological distress and could lead to interventions to bolster support and reduce distress.
PURPOSE: Up to 38% of prostate cancer survivors experience significant psychological distress; 6-16% are diagnosed with depression or anxiety disorders. Support from a relationship partner can ameliorate psychological distress, but many studies treat relationship status as a dichotomous predictor without accounting for level of support provided by the partner. METHODS: The current study is a secondary analysis of a sample of 292 prostate cancer survivors recruited by nine Community Clinical Oncology Program (CCOP) sites around the USA to a larger randomized controlled trial. Self-reported distress was measured at a baseline visit using the Profile of Mood States (POMS) and partner support was measured using the Social Network and Support Assessment (SNSA). Post hoc groups consisting of unmarried survivors, married survivors with low partner support (SNSA scores below the median), and married survivors with high partner support (SNSA scores above the median) were compared on distress using univariate and analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) analyses. RESULTS: Married prostate cancer survivors with high partner support reported significantly lower levels of psychological distress than the other two groups on the total distress scale (16.20-19.19 points lower, p < 0.001). After adjusting for multiple comparisons, this pattern was also seen for subscales of distress. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the importance of assessing both partner support and marital status when evaluating a survivor's psychosocial functioning and support network. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Assessing support could improve understanding of the association between partner support and prostate cancer survivors' psychological distress and could lead to interventions to bolster support and reduce distress.
Authors: Jason Q Purnell; Oxana G Palesh; Charles E Heckler; M Jacob Adams; Nancy Chin; Supriya Mohile; Luke J Peppone; James N Atkins; Dennis F Moore; David Spiegel; Edward Messing; Gary R Morrow Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2010-04-23 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Tim W Regan; Sylvie D Lambert; Brian Kelly; Patrick McElduff; Afaf Girgis; Karen Kayser; Jane Turner Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2014-05-13
Authors: N Köhler; M Friedrich; L Gansera; S Holze; R Thiel; S Roth; U Rebmann; J-U Stolzenburg; M C Truss; D Fahlenkamp; H-J Scholz; E Brähler Journal: Eur J Cancer Care (Engl) Date: 2014-02-13 Impact factor: 2.520
Authors: Janine Giese-Davis; Amy Waller; Linda E Carlson; Shannon Groff; Lihong Zhong; Eric Neri; Sacha M Bachor; Jassandre Adamyk-Simpson; Kate M S Rancourt; Bernie Dunlop; Barry D Bultz Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2012-10-02 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Benjamin D Capistrant; Lindsey Lesher; Nidhi Kohli; Enyinnaya N Merengwa; Badrinath Konety; Darryl Mitteldorf; William G West; B R Simon Rosser Journal: Oncol Nurs Forum Date: 2018-07-02 Impact factor: 2.172
Authors: Charles Kamen; Sheila N Garland; Charles E Heckler; Anita R Peoples; Ian R Kleckner; Calvin L Cole; Michael L Perlis; Gary R Morrow; Karen M Mustian; Joseph A Roscoe Journal: Behav Sleep Med Date: 2017-01-27 Impact factor: 2.964
Authors: Saira Khan; Kenneth G Nepple; Adam S Kibel; Gurdarshan Sandhu; Dorina Kallogjeri; Seth Strope; Robert Grubb; Kathleen Y Wolin; Siobhan Sutcliffe Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2019-06-18 Impact factor: 2.506