Linda E Carlson1,2,3, Codie R Rouleau4, Michael Speca5,6, John Robinson5,4,6, Barry D Bultz5,4,6. 1. Department of Oncology, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, 1331 29St NW, Calgary, T2N 4N2, Alberta, Canada. l.carlson@ucalgary.ca. 2. Division of Psychosocial Oncology, Tom Baker Cancer Centre, Cancer Control Alberta, Holy Cross Site 2202 2nd St SW, Calgary, T2S 3C1, Alberta, Canada. l.carlson@ucalgary.ca. 3. Department of Psychology, University of Calgary, 2500 University Drive, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. l.carlson@ucalgary.ca. 4. Division of Psychosocial Oncology, Tom Baker Cancer Centre, Cancer Control Alberta, Holy Cross Site 2202 2nd St SW, Calgary, T2S 3C1, Alberta, Canada. 5. Department of Oncology, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, 1331 29St NW, Calgary, T2N 4N2, Alberta, Canada. 6. Department of Psychology, University of Calgary, 2500 University Drive, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this paper is to report the results of a negative randomized controlled trial, which piloted brief supportive-expressive therapy (SET) for partners of men with prostate cancer, and to discuss lessons learned for future clinical trials. METHODS:Partners of men with newly diagnosed, non-metastatic prostate cancer were randomized to SET (n = 45) or usual care (n = 32). SET involved six weekly group sessions emphasizing emotional expression, social support, and finding meaning in the cancer experience. Measures of mood disturbance, marital satisfaction, and social support were administered to both partners and patients at baseline, post-program, and at 3- and 6-month follow-up. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between SET and the control group for either patients or their wives on any outcome. Regardless of group membership, partners reported improvements in total mood disturbance (p = .011), tension (p < .001), anger (p = .041), confusion (p < .001), state anxiety (p = .001), and emotional support (p = .037), and patients reported improvements in tension (p = .003), emotional support (p = .047), positive interaction support (p = .004), and overall social support (p = .026). CONCLUSIONS: Compared to the natural course of recovery, SET did not improve psychosocial outcomes for either men with prostate cancer or their wives. Methodological challenges experienced in implementing this trial yield valuable lessons for future research, including designing interventions relevant to unique problems faced by specific groups, being closely guided by previous research, and the potential utility of screening for distress as an inclusion criteria in intervention trials.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: The purpose of this paper is to report the results of a negative randomized controlled trial, which piloted brief supportive-expressive therapy (SET) for partners of men with prostate cancer, and to discuss lessons learned for future clinical trials. METHODS: Partners of men with newly diagnosed, non-metastatic prostate cancer were randomized to SET (n = 45) or usual care (n = 32). SET involved six weekly group sessions emphasizing emotional expression, social support, and finding meaning in the cancer experience. Measures of mood disturbance, marital satisfaction, and social support were administered to both partners and patients at baseline, post-program, and at 3- and 6-month follow-up. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between SET and the control group for either patients or their wives on any outcome. Regardless of group membership, partners reported improvements in total mood disturbance (p = .011), tension (p < .001), anger (p = .041), confusion (p < .001), state anxiety (p = .001), and emotional support (p = .037), and patients reported improvements in tension (p = .003), emotional support (p = .047), positive interaction support (p = .004), and overall social support (p = .026). CONCLUSIONS: Compared to the natural course of recovery, SET did not improve psychosocial outcomes for either men with prostate cancer or their wives. Methodological challenges experienced in implementing this trial yield valuable lessons for future research, including designing interventions relevant to unique problems faced by specific groups, being closely guided by previous research, and the potential utility of screening for distress as an inclusion criteria in intervention trials.
Authors: C Classen; L D Butler; C Koopman; E Miller; S DiMiceli; J Giese-Davis; P Fobair; R W Carlson; H C Kraemer; D Spiegel Journal: Arch Gen Psychiatry Date: 2001-05
Authors: Lisa D Butler; Cheryl Koopman; Eric Neri; Janine Giese-Davis; Oxana Palesh; Krista A Thorne-Yocam; Sue Dimiceli; Xin-Hua Chen; Patricia Fobair; Helena C Kraemer; David Spiegel Journal: Health Psychol Date: 2009-09 Impact factor: 4.267
Authors: Linda E Carlson; Richard Doll; Joanne Stephen; Peter Faris; Rie Tamagawa; Elaine Drysdale; Michael Speca Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2013-08-05 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Suzanne K Chambers; Leslie Schover; Lisa Nielsen; Kim Halford; Samantha Clutton; Robert A Gardiner; Jeff Dunn; Stefano Occhipinti Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2013-06-12 Impact factor: 3.603