Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18687149›Full record

Trial reportBMC cancer2008

ProsCan for Couples: randomised controlled trial of a couples-based sexuality intervention for men with localised prostate cancer who receive radical prostatectomy.

Suzanne K Chambers, Leslie Schover, Kim Halford, Samantha Clutton, Megan Ferguson, Louisa Gordon, R A Gardiner, Stefano Occhipinti, Jeff Dunn

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC cancer, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

24 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 62 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. The effects of partnered exercise on physical intimacy in couples coping with prostate cancer.Health psychology : official journal of the Division of Health Psychology, American Psychological Association · 2016
    Article
  14. Toward structured peer support interventions in oncology: a qualitative insight into the experiences of gynaecological cancer survivors providing peer support.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2016
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Defining young in the context of prostate cancer.American journal of men's health · 2015
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Couple distress after localised prostate cancer.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2013
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.

Suzanne K ChambersViertel Centre for Research in Cancer Control, Cancer Council Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. suzannechambers@cancerqld.org.au
Leslie Schover
Kim Halford
Samantha Clutton
Megan Ferguson
Louisa Gordon
R A Gardiner
Stefano Occhipinti
Jeff Dunn
Cancer Council Queensland · AUGriffith University · AUJames Cook University · AUProstate Cancer Foundation of Australia · AUQIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute · AUThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundProstate cancer is the most common male cancer in the Western world. The most substantial long term morbidity from this cancer is sexual dysfunction with consequent adverse changes in couple and intimate relationships. Research to date has not identified an effective way to improve sexual and psychosocial adjustment for both men with prostate cancer and their partners. As well, the efficacy and cost effectiveness of peer counselling as opposed to professional models of service delivery has not yet been empirically tested. This paper presents the design of a three arm randomised controlled trial (peer vs. nurse counselling vs. usual care) that will evaluate the efficacy of two couples-based sexuality interventions (ProsCan for Couples: Peer support vs. nurse counselling) on men's and women's sexual and psychosocial adjustment after surgical treatment for localised prostate cancer; in addition to cost-effectiveness. METHODS/

designSeventy couples per condition (210 couples in total) will be recruited after diagnosis and before treatment through urology private practices and hospital outpatient clinics and randomised to (1) usual care; (2) eight sessions of peer-delivered telephone support with DVD education; and (3) eight sessions of oncology nurse-delivered telephone counselling with DVD education. Two intervention sessions will be delivered before surgery and six over the six months post-surgery. The intervention will utilise a cognitive behavioural approach along with couple relationship education focussed on relationship enhancement and helping the couple to conjointly manage the stresses of cancer diagnosis and treatment. Participants will be assessed at baseline (before surgery) and 3, 6 and 12 months post-surgery. Outcome measures include: sexual adjustment; unmet sexuality supportive care needs; attitudes to sexual help seeking; psychological adjustment; benefit finding and quality of life. DISCUSSION: The study will provide recommendations about the efficacy of peer support vs. nurse counselling to facilitate better sexual and couple adjustment after prostate cancer as well as recommendations on whether the interventions represent efficient health service delivery.

trial registrationACTRN12608000358347.

Indexed as

Peer GroupSocial SupportAdaptation, PsychologicalCounselingFemaleHumansMaleOncology NursingProstatic NeoplasmsQuality of LifeResearch DesignSex CounselingSexual Dysfunction, PhysiologicalSexual Dysfunctions, PsychologicalTelemedicine

Identifiers

PMID18687149
PMCPMC2529334
OpenAlexW2077883357

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.