The influence of developmental life stage on quality of life in survivors of prostate cancer and their partners
- 287 Downloads
Although prostate cancer is prevalent, little information is available on how it affects couples’ quality of life (QOL) according to their age cohort. The purpose of this study was to examine how quality of life, self-efficacy and appraisal of the illness experience vary among men with prostate cancer and their partners according to age cohort: middle age (50–64); young-old (65–74); and old-old (75–84). Using an Adult Developmental and Family Stress framework, this study focuses on how normative (developmental stage) and non-normative stressors (prostate cancer) may affect a couple's ability to adapt.
A descriptive, comparative design was used to examine age-related differences in quality of life and selected psychosocial variables in 69 men with prostate cancer and their spouses. Cross-sectional data were obtained using standardized instruments with adequate reliability and validity. ANCOVA and MANCOVA were used to determine differences among age groups.
Findings indicated that patients who were ages 65–74 had better QOL and higher self-efficacy than patients ages 50–64 and less negative appraisal of illness than the other two groups. Spouses ages 50–64 reported the most distress related to sexual changes in their husbands. Spouses in both the middle age and old-old group had more bother related to hormone therapy than the young-old spouses.
Implications for cancer survivors
Findings suggest that interventions should be tailored to dyads’ developmental life stage. Younger and older prostate cancer survivors and their partners may benefit from tailored interventions designed to improve their quality of life and confidence in managing their treatment outcomes during the survivorship period.
KeywordsProstate cancer Spouses Developmental life stage Quality of life Aging Family Caregivers Couples Self-efficacy
- 1.Jemal A, Siegal R, Ward E, Murray T, Xu J, Thun M. Cancer statistics, 2007. CA: Cancer J Clin 2007;57:43–66.Google Scholar
- 3.Rowland J. Developmental states and adaptation: adult model. In: Holland J, Rowland J, editors. Handbook of psycho-oncology: psychological care of the patient with cancer. New York: Oxford University Press Inc.; 1990. p. 25–43.Google Scholar
- 4.McCubbin M. Family stress theory and the development of nursing knowledge about family adaptation. In: Fathom SL, et al, editor. The nursing of families: theory, research, education, and practice. Newborn Park: Sage; 1993. p. 46–58.Google Scholar
- 7.Newman B, Newman P. Development through life: a psychosocial approach. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth; 1999.Google Scholar
- 13.Hewitt M, Rowland J, Yancik R. Cancer survivors in the United States: age, health, and disability. J Gerontol: Medical Sciences 2003;58(1):82–91.Google Scholar
- 29.Deliveliotis C, Liakouras C, Delis A, Skolarikos A, Varkarakis J, Protogerou V. Prostate operations: long-term effects on sexual and urinary function and quality of life. Comparison with an age-matched control population. Urol Surg 2004;32(4):283–9.Google Scholar
- 43.Aldwin CM, et al. Age differences in stress, coping, and appraisal: findings from the normative aging study. J Gerontol 1996;51B(4):P179–188.Google Scholar
- 45.Bandura A. Self-efficacy. In: Ramachaudran VS, editor. Encyclopedia of human behavior. vol 4. New York: Academic; 1994. p. 71–81.Google Scholar
- 48.McCubbin M. Family stress theory and the development of nursing knowledge about family adaptation. Newborn Park: Sage; 1993.Google Scholar
- 53.Northouse LL, Mood D, Montie JE, Sandler HM, Forman JD, Hussain M, Pienta KJ, Smith DC, Kershaw T. Living with prostate cancer: patients’ and spouses’ psychosocial status and quality of life. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(27):1–7.Google Scholar
- 57.Oberst MT. Appraisal of caregiving scale: manual for use. Detroit, MI: Wayne State University; 1991.Google Scholar
- 58.Lewis F. Family visitation study final report: National Cancer Institute. 1996.Google Scholar
- 61.Nunnally JCBIH. Psychometric theory. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.; 1994.Google Scholar
- 70.Wallhagen MI. Caregiving demands: their difficulty and effects on the well being of elderly caregivers. Sch Inq Nurs Pract: An International Journal 1992;6(2):111–27.Google Scholar