Benjamin D Capistrant1, Beatriz Torres2, Enyinnaya Merengwa3, William G West4, Darryl Mitteldorf5, B R Simon Rosser4. 1. Division of Epidemiology and Community Health, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA. bcapistr@umn.edu. 2. Department of Communication Studies, Gustavus Adolphus College, St. Peter, MN, USA. 3. Medical School, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA. 4. Division of Epidemiology and Community Health, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA. 5. Malecare, New York, NY, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Prostate cancer, the second most common cancer among men, typically onsets in middle or older age. Gay/bisexual men have different social networks and unique social support needs, particularly as it pertains to health care access and prostate side effects. Few studies have investigated the availability and provision of social support for gay and bisexual men with prostate cancer (GBMPCa). METHODS: This study used qualitative data from in-depth, semistructured, one-on-one telephone interviews with 30 GBMPCa recruited from a national cancer support group network, Malecare. Inductive and deductive codes were used to identify themes about social support provided to GBMPCa during diagnosis and treatment. RESULTS: GBMPCa reported help from friends, family (parents and siblings), ex-partners, and paid caregivers. Men in relationships reported varying levels of reliance on their partners for support, in part due to relationship dynamics and living arrangements. Single men showed a theme of independence ("I turned down all help," "My friends don't want to be bothered"). After diagnosis, many men reported seeking informational and emotional support from prostate cancer support groups; most expressed wanting more support groups specifically for GBMPCa. During or after treatment, men reported receiving a range of instrumental support, largely a function of relationship status and treatment type. CONCLUSIONS: GBMPCa received variable, but generally low, social support during diagnosis and treatment and from a diverse social network, including a prominence of friends and family. Clinicians should be aware of GBMPCa's distinct patterns of social support needs and providers.
OBJECTIVE:Prostate cancer, the second most common cancer among men, typically onsets in middle or older age. Gay/bisexual men have different social networks and unique social support needs, particularly as it pertains to health care access and prostate side effects. Few studies have investigated the availability and provision of social support for gay and bisexual men with prostate cancer (GBMPCa). METHODS: This study used qualitative data from in-depth, semistructured, one-on-one telephone interviews with 30 GBMPCa recruited from a national cancer support group network, Malecare. Inductive and deductive codes were used to identify themes about social support provided to GBMPCa during diagnosis and treatment. RESULTS:GBMPCa reported help from friends, family (parents and siblings), ex-partners, and paid caregivers. Men in relationships reported varying levels of reliance on their partners for support, in part due to relationship dynamics and living arrangements. Single men showed a theme of independence ("I turned down all help," "My friends don't want to be bothered"). After diagnosis, many men reported seeking informational and emotional support from prostate cancer support groups; most expressed wanting more support groups specifically for GBMPCa. During or after treatment, men reported receiving a range of instrumental support, largely a function of relationship status and treatment type. CONCLUSIONS:GBMPCa received variable, but generally low, social support during diagnosis and treatment and from a diverse social network, including a prominence of friends and family. Clinicians should be aware of GBMPCa's distinct patterns of social support needs and providers.
Authors: Catherine Benedict; Jason R Dahn; Michael H Antoni; Lara Traeger; Bruce Kava; Natalie Bustillo; Eric S Zhou; Frank J Penedo Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2014-09-23 Impact factor: 3.894
Authors: Candyce H Kroenke; Laura D Kubzansky; Eva S Schernhammer; Michelle D Holmes; Ichiro Kawachi Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2006-03-01 Impact factor: 44.544
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: Elizabeth J Polter; Christopher W Wheldon; B R Simon Rosser; Nidhi Kohli; Benjamin D Capistrant; Aditya Kapoor; Badrinath Konety; Darryl Mitteldorf; Michael Ross; Kristine M C Talley; Loren Terveen; William West; Morgan M Wright Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2019-11-11 Impact factor: 3.894
Authors: B R Simon Rosser; Morgan Wright; Chris J Hoefer; Elizabeth J Polter; Nidhi Kohli; Christopher W Wheldon; Ryan Haggart; Kristine Mc Talley; Darryl Mitteldorf; Gunna Kilian; Badrinath R Konety; Michael W Ross; William West Journal: Clin Trials Date: 2022-03-01 Impact factor: 2.599
Authors: B R Simon Rosser; G Nic Rider; Aditya Kapoor; Kristine M C Talley; Ryan Haggart; Nidhi Kohli; Badrinath R Konety; Darryl Mitteldorf; Elizabeth J Polter; Michael W Ross; William West; Christopher Wheldon; Morgan Wright Journal: Transl Androl Urol Date: 2021-07
Authors: B R Simon Rosser; Shanda L Hunt; Benjamin D Capistrant; Nidhi Kohli; Badrinath R Konety; Darryl Mitteldorf; Michael W Ross; Kristine M Talley; William West Journal: Curr Sex Health Rep Date: 2019-11-08
Authors: Morgan M Wright; Pamela Schreiner; B R Simon Rosser; Elizabeth J Polter; Darryl Mitteldorf; William West; Michael W Ross Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2019-11-13 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Kristin G Cloyes; Jia-Wen Guo; Karrin E Tennant; Rachael McCormick; Kelly J Mansfield; Sarah E Wawrzynski; Sarah C Classen; Eric C Jones; Maija Reblin Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2022-04-08 Impact factor: 5.738