Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Male coping processes as demonstrated in the context of a cancer-related social support group

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Supportive Care in Cancer Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The coping styles of five adult men within the context of a cancer-related social support group and their preferences regarding group support were examined.

Methods

Considering the paucity of literature on male coping processes within a cancer-related social support group, qualitative methods were employed. Specifically, template analysis was used to analyze the range and quality of coping styles.

Results

In contrast to the commonly cited solitary and emotionally restricted coping qualities associated with the male gender role, an emphasis on seeking connection and emotional support in their coping efforts was discovered. Preferences of group qualities (e.g., participant characteristics and session topics) that emerged included an interest in connection, mixed sex groups, and groups composed of mixed diagnoses.

Conclusions

The findings of this study can contribute to the development of interventions aimed at increasing the effectiveness of male coping in group-focused supportive services in cancer care.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Davison KP, Pennebaker JW, Dickerson SS (2000) Who talks? The social psychology of illness support groups. Am Psychol 55:205

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Holland JC (2002) History of psycho-oncology: overcoming attitudinal and conceptual barriers. Psychosom Med 64:206–221

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Gottlieb BH, Wachala ED (2007) Cancer support groups: a critical review of empirical studies. Psychooncology 16:379–400

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Grande GL, Myers LB, Sutton SR (2006) How do patients who participate in cancer support groups differ from those who do not? Psychooncology 15:321–334

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Magen RH, Glajchen M (1999) Cancer support groups: client outcome and the context of group process. Res Social Work Prac 9:541–554

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Spiegel D, Bloom JR, Yalom I (1981) Group support for patients with metastatic cancer: a randomized prospective outcome study. Arch Gen Psychiatry 38:527–533

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Edelman SA, Craig A, Kidman AD (2000) Group interventions with cancer patients: efficacy of psychoeducational versus supportive groups. J Psychosoc Oncol 18:67–85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Lieberman MA (2008) Gender and online cancer support groups: issues facing male cancer patients. J Cancer Educ 23:167–171

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Keller M, Henrich G (1999) Illness-related distress: does it mean the same for men and women? Gender aspects in cancer patients' distress and adjustment. Acta Oncol 38:747–755

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Moynihan C (2002) Men, women, gender and cancer. Eur J Cancer Care 11:166–172

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Thaxton L, Emshof JG, Guessous O (2005) Prostate cancer support groups. J Psychosoc Oncol 23:25–40

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Visser A, Van Andel G (2000) Education and counseling in cancer: the neglected case of the prostate cancer patients. Patient Educ Couns 40:197–199

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Voerman B et al (2007) Determinants of participation in social support groups for prostate cancer patients. Psychooncology 16:1092–1099

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Bloch S et al (2007) Psychological adjustment of men with prostate cancer: a review of the literature. BioPsychoSoc Med 1:1–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Roesch SC et al (2005) Coping with prostate cancer: a meta-analytic review. J Behav Med 28:281–293

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Harrison J, Maguire P, Pitceathly C (1995) Confiding in crisis: gender differences in pattern of confiding among cancer patients. Soc Sci Med 41:1255–1260

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Krizek C et al (1999) Gender and cancer support group participation. Cancer Pract 7:86–92

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Manii D, Ammerman D (2008) Men and cancer: a study of the needs of male cancer patients in treatment. J Psychosoc Oncol 26:87

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Neumann M et al (2010) Barriers to using psycho-oncology services: a qualitative research into the perspectives of users, their relatives, non-users, physicians, and nurses. Support Care Cancer 18:1147–1156

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Coreil J, Behal R (1999) Man to man prostate cancer support groups. Cancer Pract 7:122–129

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Kiss A, Meryn S (2001) Effect of sex and gender on psychosocial aspects of prostate and breast cancer. BMJ 323:1055–1058

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Seale C, Ziebland S, Charteris-Black J (2006) Gender, cancer experience and internet use: a comparative keyword analysis of interviews and online cancer support groups. Soc Sci Med 62:2577–2590

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Gray R et al (1996) Breast cancer and prostate cancer self-help groups: reflections on differences. Psychooncology 5:37–142

    Google Scholar 

  24. Clarke JN (2004) A comparison of breast, testicular and prostate cancer in mass print media (1996-2001). Soc Sci Med 59:541–551

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Hoyt MA (2009) Gender role conflict and emotional approach coping in men with cancer. Psychol Health 24:981–996

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Guba EG, Lincoln YS (1994) Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS (eds) Handbook of qualitative research, 2nd edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks, pp 105–117

    Google Scholar 

  27. Schwandt TA (2000) Three epistemological stances for qualitative inquiry. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS (eds) Handbook of qualitative research, 2nd edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks, pp 189–213

    Google Scholar 

  28. Sciarra D (1999) The role of the qualitative researcher. In: Kopala M, Suzuki LA (eds) Using qualitative methods in psychology. Sage, Thousand Oaks, pp 37–48

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  29. Ponterotto JG (2005) Qualitative research in counseling psychology: a primer on research paradigms and philosophy of science. J Couns Psychol 52:126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Schwandt TA (1994) Constructivist, interpretivist approaches to human inquiry. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS (eds) Handbook of qualitative research, 2nd edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  31. Morrow SL (2005) Quality and trustworthiness in qualitative research in counseling psychology. J Couns Psychol 52:250

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Ponterotto JG, Grieger I (2007) Effectively communicating qualitative research. Couns Psychol 35:404–430

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Birks M, Chapman Y, Francis K (2008) Memoing in qualitative research. J Res Nurs 13:68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Daly J et al (2007) A hierarchy of evidence for assessing qualitative health research. J Clin Epidemiol 60:43–49

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Owen JE et al (2007) Use of health-related and cancer-specific support groups among adult cancer survivors. Cancer 109:2580–2589

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Marshall MN (1996) Sampling for qualitative research. Fam Pract 13:522–526

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Morse JM (1999) Qualitative generalizability. Qual Health Res 9:5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Sandelowski M (1995) Sample size in qualitative research. Res Nurs Health 18:179–183

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Collingridge DS, Gantt EE (2008) The quality of qualitative research. Am J Med Qual 23:389–395

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Spencer S, Carver CS, Price A (1998) Psychological and social factors in adaptation. Psychooncology:211–222

  41. Creswell JW (2007) Qualitative inquiry & research design: choosing among five approaches. Sage, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  42. King N (1998) Template analysis. In: Symon G, Cassell C (eds) Qualitative methods and analysis in organizational research. Sage, London

    Google Scholar 

  43. Patton MQ (2002) Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Sage, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  44. Denzin NK (2001) Interpretive interactionism, vol 16. Sage, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  45. Baumeister RF, Sommer KL (1997) What do men want? Gender differences and two spheres of belongingness: comment on Cross and Madson. Psychol Bull 122:38–44

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Jordan JV (1991) Women's growth in connection: writings from the Stone Center. Guilford, New York

    Google Scholar 

  47. Levant RF (1996) The new psychology of men. Prof Psychol-Res Pract 27:259

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Nutt RL, Brooks GR (2008) Psychology of gender. In: Brown SD, Lent RW (eds) Handbook of counseling psychology. Wiley, Hoboken

    Google Scholar 

  49. Scher M (2001) Male therapist, male client: reflections on critical dynamics. In: Brooks G, Good G (eds) The handbook of counseling and psychotherapy approaches for men. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  50. Aziz NM (2007) Cancer survivorship research: state of knowledge, challenges and opportunities. Acta Oncol 46:417–432

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Deimling GT et al (2006) Coping among older adult, long term cancer survivors. Psychooncology 15:143–159

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Washington AE, Lipstein SH (2011) The patient-centered outcomes research institute—promoting better information, decisions, and health. New Engl J Med 365:e31

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the following institution and people for their support in preparing this manuscript: Gilda's Club International; Andrew Finch, Ph.D.; and Allison Palmberg, BS.

Conflict of interest

The authors have none to declare.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Virginia Commonwealth University, 806 West Franklin Street, P.O. Box 842018, Richmond, VA, 23284, USA

    Stephen K. Trapp, Jacqueline D. Woods, Alicia Grove & Marilyn Stern

Authors
  1. Stephen K. Trapp
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jacqueline D. Woods
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Alicia Grove
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Marilyn Stern
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stephen K. Trapp.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Trapp, S.K., Woods, J.D., Grove, A. et al. Male coping processes as demonstrated in the context of a cancer-related social support group. Support Care Cancer 21, 619–627 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-012-1565-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-012-1565-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation