Journal of Cancer Survivorship

, Volume 5, Issue 2, pp 132–141 | Cite as

The experiences of unpartnered men with prostate cancer: a qualitative analysis

  • Meredith Wallace Kazer
  • Janet Harden
  • Matthew Burke
  • Martin G. Sanda
  • Jill Hardy
  • Donald E. Bailey
  • PROSTQA Study Group
Article

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to examine how men without partners make decisions about prostate cancer treatment, manage treatment side effects, and obtain information and support.

Background

In 2009, it was projected that over 230,000 men were diagnosed with prostate cancer. While treatment options vary, these options result in changes within the man that can affect his quality of life. Research has shown that often spouses play a central role in men’s choice of treatment and in maintaining men’s quality of life. In addition, spouses are the major providers of emotional support and physical care. However, little is known about how men without partners cope with prostate cancer. Prior research seldom addresses how diagnosis and treatment for prostate cancer affects the quality of life of men without partners.

Methods

Because very little is known about the needs of men without partners managing prostate cancer, qualitative analysis of data obtained during semi-structure interviews provided respondents with an opportunity to share the lived experience of prostate cancer. A semi-structured interview was conducted with selected, consenting men. The sample was drawn from the ongoing R01 study of men with prostate cancer (PROSTQA).

Results

The sample for this study included 17 unpartnered prostate cancer survivors. The ages of participants ranged from 47 to 72 with a mean age of 63. The participants had between zero and two co-morbidities with an average of one co-morbidity per participant. The sample was 82% Caucasian and 17% Black. A total of 35% of the participants reported “some college” (n = 6), 30% graduated from college (n = 5), and 23% went to graduate school (n = 4). One participant reported that he was a high school graduate and one had less than a high school education. Five themes emerged from the data: going it alone, diagnosis and prostate cancer treatment decision-making, sources of information and support, the aftermath of prostate cancer, and coping strategies.

Conclusions

This study provides information about unpartnered men’s prostate cancer experience. This information will help health care professionals to meet the needs of unpartnered more effectively and help them to assist men as they adapt to living with this chronic illness.

Keywords

Prostate cancer Male cancers Survivorship 

References

  1. 1.
    Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E, Hao Y, Xu J, Murray T, et al. Cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin. 2009;59(4):225–49.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Litwin MS, Sadetsky N, Pasta DJ, Lubeck DP. Bowel function and bother after treatment for early stage prostate cancer: a longitudinal quality of life analysis from CaPSURE. J Urol. 2004;172:515–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hu JC, Elkin EP, Pasta DJ, Lubeck DP, Katttan MW, Carroll PR, et al. Predicting quality of life after radical prostatectomy: results from CaPSURE. J Urol. 2004;171:703–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hedestig O, Sandman P, Tomic R, Widmark A. Living after external beam radiotherapy of localized prostate cancer. Cancer Nurs. 2005;28(4):310–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ward-Smith P, Kapitan D. Quality of life among men treated with radiation therapy for prostate cancer. Urol Nurs. 2005;25(4):263–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Novan L, Morag A. Advanced prostate cancer patients’ relationships with their spouses following hormonal therapy. Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2003;7:73–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Harden J, Schafenacker A, Northouse LL, Mood D, Smith D, Pienta K, et al. Couples’ experiences with prostate cancer: focus group research. Oncol Nurs Forum. 2002;29(4):701–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Harden J, Northouse LL, Mood D. Qualitative analysis of couples’ experience with prostate cancer by age cohort. Cancer Nurs. 2006;29(5):367–77.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Maliski SL, Heilemann MV, McCorkle R. From “death sentence” to “good cancer”: couples’ transformation of a prostate cancer diagnosis. Nurs Res. 2002;51(6):391–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jakobsson L, Hallberg IR, Loven L. Experiences of daily life and life quality in men with prostate cancer: an exploratory study. Part 1. Eur J Cancer Care. 1997;6:108–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    National Cancer Institute. Prostate Cancer Progress Report. 2004. Washington: Author. Retrieved from http://planning.cancer.gov/library/2004prostateProgRpt.pdf
  12. 12.
    National Cancer Institute. Prostate cancer research plan FY 2003-2008. 2002. Washington: Author. Retrieved from http://planning.cancer.gov/pdfprgreports/prostateplan.pdf
  13. 13.
    Krongrad A, Lai H, Burke MA, Goodkin K, Lai S. Marriage and mortality in prostate cancer. J Urol. 1996;156(5):1696–1700.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Denberg TD, Beaty BL, Kim FJ, Steiner JF. Marriage and ethnicity predict treatment in localized prostate carcinoma. Cancer. 2005;103(9):1819–25.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Perczek RE, Burke MA, Carver CS, Krongrad A, Terris MK. Facing a prostate cancer diagnosis: who is at risk for increased distress? Cancer. 2002;94(11):2923–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sanda MG, Dunn RL, Michalski J, Sandler HM, Northouse L, Hembroff L, et al. Quality of life and satisfaction with outcome among prostate-cancer survivors. N Engl J Med. 2008;358(12):1250–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Newell GR, Pollack ES, Spitz MR, Sider JG, Fueger JJ. Incidence of prostate cancer and marital status. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1987;79(2):259–62.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Vaartio H, Kivineimi K, Suominen T. Men’s experiences and their resources from cancer diagnosis to recovery. Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2003;7(3):182–90. doi:10.1016/S1462-3889(03)00006-1.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Korfage IJ, de Koning HJ, Roobol M, Schroder FH, Essink-Bot ML. Prostate cancer diagnosis: the impact on patients’ mental health. Eur J Cancer. 2006;42(2):165–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ben-Tovim DI, Dougherty MLG, Stapleton AMF, Pinnock CB. Coping with prostate cancer: a quantitative analysis using a new instrument, the centre for clinical excellence in urological research coping with cancer instrument. Urology. 2002;59(3):383–8. doi:10.1016/S0090-4295(01)01540-0.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Thaxton L, Emshoff JG, Guessous O. Prostate cancer support groups: literature review. J Psychosoc Oncol. 2005;23(1):25–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Connell RW, Messerschmidt JW. Hegemonic masculinity: Rethinking the concept. Gend Soc. 2005;19(6):829–59. doi:10.1177/0891243205278639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Crighton FL. University Kansas research paper. 2002. p. 165.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Harden J, Schafenacker A, Northouse L, Mood D, Pienta K, Hussain M, et al. Couples experiences with prostate cancer: focus group research. Oncol Nurs Forum. 2002;29:701–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lintz K, Moynihan C, Steginga S, Norman A, Eeles K, Huddart R, Dearnaley D, Watson NM. Prostate cancer patient’s support and psychological care needs: Survey from a Non-Surgical Oncology Clinic. 2002; 50Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wallace M, Storms S. The needs of men with prostate cancer. Appl Nurs Res. 2007;20(4):181–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Robinson A, Thomson R. Variability in patient preferences for participating in medical decision making: implication for the use of decision support tools. Qual Health Care. 2001;10 Suppl 1:34–8.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Whitney SN, McGuire AL, McCullough LB. A typology of shared decision making, informed consent, and simple consent. Ann Intern Med. 2004;140:54–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    American Urological Association. Prostate specific antigen best practice statement. 2009. Retrieved June 29, 2009 from http://www.auanet.org/content/guidelines-and-quality-care/clinical-guidelines/main-reports/psa09.pdf.
  30. 30.
    Schröder FH, Hugosson J, Roobol MJ, Tammela TL, Ciatto S, Nelen V, et al. Screening and prostate-cancer mortality in a randomized European study. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(13):1320–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Pew Internet & American Life Project. Seeding the cloud: what mobile access means for usage patterns and online content. 2008. Retrieved September 20, 2008. From http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Users.and.Cloud.pdf.
  32. 32.
    Broom A. The eMale: prostate cancer, masculinity and online support as a challenge to medical expertise. J Sociol. 2005;41(1):87–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Smither AR, Guralnick ML, Davis NB, See WA. Quantifying the natural history of post-radical prostatectomy incontinence using objective pad test data. BMC Urology. 2007; 7(2)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Siegel T, Moul JW, Spevak M, Alvord WG, Costabile RA. The development of erectile dysfunction in men treated for prostate cancer. J Urol. 2001;165(2):430–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Yoshioka Y. Current status and perspectives of brachytherapy for prostate cancer. Int J Clin Oncol. 2009;14:31–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Lazarus RS. Coping theory and research: past, present, and future. Psychosom Med. 1993;55(3):234–47.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Link LB, Robbins L, Mancuso CA, Charlson ME. How do cancer patients choose their coping strategies? A qualitative study. Patient Education and Counseling 2005 58(1), 96–103. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2004.07.007

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Meredith Wallace Kazer
    • 1
  • Janet Harden
    • 2
  • Matthew Burke
    • 3
  • Martin G. Sanda
    • 4
  • Jill Hardy
    • 5
  • Donald E. Bailey
    • 6
  • PROSTQA Study Group
  1. 1.Fairfield University School of NursingFairfieldUSA
  2. 2.Wayne State University School of NursingDetroitUSA
  3. 3.Yale University School of NursingNew HavenUSA
  4. 4.Division of UrologyBeth Israel Deaconess Medical CenterBostonUSA
  5. 5.Survey Research CenterMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA
  6. 6.Duke University School of NursingDurhamUSA

Personalised recommendations