Couple‐focused interventions for men with localized prostate cancer and their spouses: A randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVES Few couple-focused interventions have improved psychological and relationship functioning among men diagnosed with localized prostate cancer and their spouses. This study compared the impact of intimacy-enhancing therapy (IET), a general health and wellness intervention (GHW), and usual care (UC) on the psychological and relationship functioning of localized prostate cancer patients and their partners. Relationship length, relationship satisfaction, and patient masculinity were evaluated as moderators. DESIGN This study was a randomized clinical trial with three study arms and four assessment time points. METHODS A total of 237 patients and partners were randomly assigned to receive IET, GHW, or UC. Participants completed measures of psychological functioning and relationship satisfaction at baseline, 5 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months post-baseline. Primary outcomes were psychological adjustment, depression, cancer-specific distress, cancer concerns, and relationship satisfaction. RESULTS Spouses in IET showed greater increases in relationship satisfaction than spouses in GHW and UC between the baseline and 5-week follow-up. Among patients in longer relationships, significant increases in psychological adjustment were found in both treatments compared to UC. Among spouses in longer relationships, psychological adjustment increased in both IET and UC but declined in GHW. CONCLUSIONS Intimacy-enhancing therapy did not show an impact on general or cancer-specific distress, but did show an early impact on relationship satisfaction among spouses. IET was superior to UC for patients in longer relationships. It will be important for researchers to understand which couple-focused interventions benefits both patients and spouses and to identify characteristics of patients, partners, and couples who may not benefit from psychological treatments. Statement of contribution What is already known on this subject? Men diagnosed with localized prostate cancer report lower health-related quality of life and both patients and spouses report elevated distress. Relationship communication plays a role in couples' psychological adaptation to prostate cancer. Couple-focused interventions have illustrated an impact on relationship communication. There are no studies comparing different couple-focused interventions. What does this study add? Intimacy-enhancing therapy was not superior to no treatment or a comparison treatment for the broad range of psychological and relationship outcomes. Intimacy-enhancing therapy was superior to no treatment for patients in longer-term relationship. The general health and wellness intervention was not beneficial for men in shorter relationships and for men who did not endorse traditional masculine norms.

[1]  H. G. van der Poel,et al.  Prevalence and correlates of mental health problems in prostate cancer survivors: A case-control study comparing survivors with general population peers. , 2017, Urologic oncology.

[2]  S. Occhipinti,et al.  Four Year Effects of Couple Relationship Education on Low and High Satisfaction Couples: A Randomized Clinical Trial , 2017, Journal of consulting and clinical psychology.

[3]  H. V. Van Poppel,et al.  Lifestyle interventions to improve the quality of life of men with prostate cancer: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials. , 2016, Critical reviews in oncology/hematology.

[4]  J. A. Bennett,et al.  The effects of partnered exercise on physical intimacy in couples coping with prostate cancer. , 2016, Health psychology : official journal of the Division of Health Psychology, American Psychological Association.

[5]  A. Hinz,et al.  Assessment of depression severity with the PHQ-9 in cancer patients and in the general population , 2016, BMC Psychiatry.

[6]  J. A. Bennett,et al.  Benefits of partnered strength training for prostate cancer survivors and spouses: results from a randomized controlled trial of the Exercising Together project , 2016, Journal of Cancer Survivorship.

[7]  D. Kashy,et al.  Holding back, intimacy, and psychological and relationship outcomes among couples coping with prostate cancer. , 2015, Journal of family psychology : JFP : journal of the Division of Family Psychology of the American Psychological Association.

[8]  S. Chambers,et al.  A randomised controlled trial of a couples‐based sexuality intervention for men with localised prostate cancer and their female partners , 2015, Psycho-oncology.

[9]  David C. Atkins,et al.  Prediction of treatment response at 5-year follow-up in a randomized clinical trial of behaviorally based couple therapies. , 2015, Journal of consulting and clinical psychology.

[10]  M. Hartmann,et al.  Distress in Cancer Patients and Their Caregivers and Association with the Caregivers' Perception of Dyadic Communication , 2014, Oncology Research and Treatment.

[11]  J. A. Bennett,et al.  Patterns and predictors of symptom incongruence in older couples coping with prostate cancer , 2014, Supportive Care in Cancer.

[12]  Tim W. Regan,et al.  Uptake and attrition in couple‐based interventions for cancer: perspectives from the literature , 2013, Psycho-oncology.

[13]  John T. Wei,et al.  Survivorship after prostate cancer treatment: spouses' quality of life at 36 months. , 2013, Oncology nursing forum.

[14]  C. Nelson,et al.  Communication and intimacy-enhancing interventions for men diagnosed with prostate cancer and their partners. , 2013, The journal of sexual medicine.

[15]  M. Irwin,et al.  Cancer-related masculine threat, emotional approach coping, and physical functioning following treatment for prostate cancer. , 2013, Health psychology : official journal of the Division of Health Psychology, American Psychological Association.

[16]  D. Ronis,et al.  Study of dyadic communication in couples managing prostate cancer: a longitudinal perspective , 2012, Psycho-oncology.

[17]  D. Kashy,et al.  A longitudinal analysis of intimacy processes and psychological distress among couples coping with head and neck or lung cancers , 2012, Journal of Behavioral Medicine.

[18]  S. Manne,et al.  Intimacy-enhancing psychological intervention for men diagnosed with prostate cancer and their partners: a pilot study. , 2011, The journal of sexual medicine.

[19]  A. Stanton,et al.  Unmitigated agency, social support, and psychological adjustment in men with cancer. , 2011, Journal of personality.

[20]  S. Manne,et al.  Cancer-related communication, relationship intimacy, and psychological distress among couples coping with localized prostate cancer , 2010, Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice.

[21]  E. McCaughan,et al.  Issues and considerations when researching sensitive issues with men: examples from a study of men and sexual health. , 2010, Nurse researcher.

[22]  H. Badr,et al.  Sexual dysfunction and spousal communication in couples coping with prostate cancer , 2009, Psycho-oncology.

[23]  L. Carey,et al.  Quantifying the recruitment challenges with couple‐based interventions for cancer: applications to early‐stage breast cancer , 2009, Psycho-oncology.

[24]  M. Esposito,et al.  Urinary and sexual outcomes in long-term (5+ years) prostate cancer disease free survivors after radical prostatectomy , 2009, Health and quality of life outcomes.

[25]  M. Litwin,et al.  Renegotiating Masculine Identity After Prostate Cancer Treatment , 2008, Qualitative health research.

[26]  S. Manne,et al.  Intimacy and relationship processes in couples' psychosocial adaptation to cancer , 2008, Cancer.

[27]  M. Scealy,et al.  Psychosocial Adjustment in Newly Diagnosed Prostate Cancer , 2008, The Australian and New Zealand journal of psychiatry.

[28]  J. Mahalik,et al.  Sexual Functioning as a Moderator of the Relationship Between Masculinity and Men's Adjustment Following Treatment for Prostate Cancer , 2008, American journal of men's health.

[29]  David C. Smith,et al.  Randomized clinical trial of a family intervention for prostate cancer patients and their spouses , 2007, Cancer.

[30]  D. Annis Dyadic Data Analysis , 2007 .

[31]  Annette S. Kluck,et al.  ORIGINAL RESEARCH—COUPLES' SEXUAL DYSFUNCTIONS: Prostate Cancer Patients and Their Partners: Differences in Satisfaction Indices and Psychological Variables , 2007 .

[32]  Anthony V D'Amico,et al.  Erectile function outcome reporting after clinically localized prostate cancer treatment. , 2007, The Journal of urology.

[33]  R. Spitzer,et al.  The PHQ-9 , 2001, Journal of General Internal Medicine.

[34]  N. Aaronson,et al.  Long‐term quality of life among Dutch prostate cancer survivors , 2006, Cancer.

[35]  S. Bloch,et al.  Psychosocial adjustment of female partners of men with prostate cancer: a review of the literature , 2006, Psycho-oncology.

[36]  Winfried Rief,et al.  Validity of the Brief Patient Health Questionnaire Mood Scale (PHQ-9) in the general population. , 2006, General hospital psychiatry.

[37]  L. Schover,et al.  Pilot intervention to enhance sexual rehabilitation for couples after treatment for localized prostate carcinoma , 2005, Cancer.

[38]  F. Masini,et al.  Prospective comprehensive assessment of sexual function after retropubic non nerve sparing radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer. , 2005, Archivio Italiano di Urologia e Andrologia.

[39]  David C. Atkins,et al.  Prediction of response to treatment in a randomized clinical trial of marital therapy. , 2005, Journal of consulting and clinical psychology.

[40]  V. Helgeson,et al.  Psychological distress in spouses of men treated for early‐stage prostate carcinoma , 2005, Cancer.

[41]  Ziding Feng,et al.  5-year urinary and sexual outcomes after radical prostatectomy: results from the prostate cancer outcomes study. , 2005, The Journal of urology.

[42]  J. Mahalik,et al.  Masculinity Scripts, Presenting Concerns, and Help Seeking: Implications for Practice and Training , 2003 .

[43]  Larry H. Ludlow,et al.  Development of the Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory , 2003 .

[44]  R. MacDonagh,et al.  Psychosocial morbidity in prostate cancer: II. A comparison of patients and partners , 2000, BJU international.

[45]  R. Spitzer,et al.  Validity and utility of the PRIME-MD patient health questionnaire in assessment of 3000 obstetric-gynecologic patients: the PRIME-MD Patient Health Questionnaire Obstetrics-Gynecology Study. , 2000, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[46]  V. Helgeson,et al.  Men's Adjustment to Prostate Cancer: The Role of Agency and Unmitigated Agency , 1997 .

[47]  I. Osterloh,et al.  The international index of erectile function (IIEF): a multidimensional scale for assessment of erectile dysfunction. , 1997, Urology.

[48]  J. Ware,et al.  The structure of psychological distress and well-being in general populations. , 1983, Journal of consulting and clinical psychology.

[49]  E. McFadden,et al.  Toxicity and response criteria of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group , 1982, American journal of clinical oncology.

[50]  M J Horowitz,et al.  Impact of Event Scale: a cross-validation study and some empirical evidence supporting a conceptual model of stress response syndromes. , 1982, Journal of consulting and clinical psychology.

[51]  M. Horowitz,et al.  Impact of Event Scale: A Measure of Subjective Stress , 1979, Psychosomatic medicine.

[52]  T. Borkovec,et al.  Credibility of analogue therapy rationales , 1972 .