Couple distress after localised prostate cancer
- 865 Downloads
The experience of the diagnosis of prostate cancer is distressing for both men and their partners. The present study describes the prevalence of psychological distress in men with prostate cancer and their partners, and the predictors of adjustment outcomes.
A cross-sectional survey of 189 prostate cancer patients who were scheduled for or had undergone surgery for localised prostate cancer and their partners assessed socio-demographic variables, masculine self-esteem and social intimacy, psychological adjustment and quality of life.
Overall, patients and partners reported low distress; however, female partners were more anxious with 36 % reporting mild to severe anxiety. For men, masculine self-esteem and time since diagnosis were most strongly related to mental health status; urinary bother most influenced physical quality of life. For female partners, the man’s psychological distress and his sexual bother were most strongly related to her mental health status; higher social intimacy was most strongly associated with physical quality of life.
The correlates of distress after the diagnosis of prostate cancer differ between patients and female partners. For men, masculine self-esteem may be most crucial, whereas for women, her partner’s level of distress may matter most. Research to better understand these interactions is needed.
KeywordsProstate cancer Psychosocial adjustment Couples Partners
This project was funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council (ID496001) and Andrology Australia. We gratefully acknowledge the support of the Urological Society of Australia and New Zealand, of Mr Bill McHugh and Mr Spence Broughton as consumer advisors in the undertaking of this research and of Miss Leah Zajdlewicz for her assistance with the analysis.
Conflict of interest
There are no conflicts of interest for any of the authors.
- 1.Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2010) Australian cancer incidence and mortality. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, CanberraGoogle Scholar
- 2.Ferlay J, Shin HR, Bray F, Forman D, Mathers C, Parkin DM (2010) GLOBOCAN 2008. Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: IARC Cancer Base No. 10. International Agency for Research on Cancer. http://globocan.iarc.fr. Accessed 3 Aug 2010
- 3.Yu XQ, Luo Q, Smith DP, Clements MS, O'Connell D (2012) Challenges in projecting prevalence for prostate cancer: issues and options. In: Australasian prostate cancer conference, MelbourneGoogle Scholar
- 6.Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2010) Cancer in Australia 2010: an overview. Cancer series no. 60 cat. no. CAN 56. AIHW, CanberraGoogle Scholar
- 15.Alemozaffar M, Regan MM, Cooperberg MR, Wei JT, Michalski JM, Sandler HM, Hembroff L, Sadetsky N, Saigal CS, Litwin MS, Klein E, Kibel AS, Hamstra DA, Pisters LL, Kuban DA, Kaplan ID, Wood DP, Ciezki J, Dunn RL, Carroll PR, Sanda MG (2011) Prediction of erectile function following treatment for prostate cancer. JAMA 306(11):1205–1214PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 17.Steinsvik EA, Axcrona K, Dahl AA, Eri LM, Stensvold A, Fossa SD (2012) Can sexual bother after radical prostatectomy be predicted preoperatively? Findings from a prospective national study of the relation between sexual function, activity and bother. BJU Int 109(9):1366–1374PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 23.Chambers SK, Schover L, Halford K, Clutton S, Ferguson M, Gordon L, Gardiner RA, Occhipinti S, Dunn J (2008) ProsCan for Couples: randomised controlled trial of a couples-based sexuality intervention for men with localised prostate cancer who receive radical prostatectomy. BMC Cancer 8:226PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 27.Hunsley J, Best M, Lefebvre M, Vito D (2001) The seven-item short form of the Dyadic Adjustment Scale: further evidence for construct validity. Am J Fam Ther 29:325–335Google Scholar
- 33.Medical Outcomes Trust and Quality Metric Incorporated (1992, 2003) SF-36: SF-36v2TM Health Survey (IQOLA SF36v2 Standard, English (Australia), 7/03). Medical Outcomes Trust and Quality Metric Incorporated, Health Assessment Lab, Lincoln, RIGoogle Scholar
- 37.Weiss DS, Marmar CR (1997) The Impact of Events Scale—Revised. In: Wilson JP, Keane TM (eds) Assessing Psychological Trauma and PTSD. Guilford, New York, pp 399–411Google Scholar
- 52.Galvao DA, Taaffe DR, Spry N, Newton RU (2011) Physical activity and genitourinary cancer survivorship. In: Courneya KS, Friedenreich CM (eds) Physical Activity and Cancer. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 217–236Google Scholar