Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21210958›Full record

Trial reportThe journal of sexual medicine2011

Intimacy-enhancing psychological intervention for men diagnosed with prostate cancer and their partners: a pilot study.

Sharon L Manne, David W Kissane, Christian J Nelson, John P Mulhall, Gary Winkel, Talia Zaider

Open access · greenAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in The journal of sexual medicine, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 53 papers, 12 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
53citing papers in PubMed, 12 pooled it
15.8field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

53 citing papers in PubMed, 12 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 147 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Effects of marital self-disclosure on marital relationship and psychological outcome for cancer patients: a systematic review.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2023
    Pooled it
  4. A systematic review and meta-analysis of couple-based intervention on sexuality and the quality of life of cancer patients and their partners.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2020
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Psychosocial interventions for men with prostate cancer.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2013
    Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. 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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Sharon L ManneUniversity of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School-The Cancer Institute of New Jersey Section of Population Studies, New Brunswick, NJ, USA. mannesl@umdnj.edu
David W Kissane
Christian J Nelson
John P Mulhall
Gary Winkel
Talia Zaider
Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center · USCity University of New York · USRutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey

Funding

WORD PROCESSING CENTER--COREP30CA006927 · NCI · RESEARCH INST OF FOX CHASE CAN CTR · PI Margaret von Mehren · 1985 to 2026
$138.8M
Intimacy-Enhancing Couples' Intervention for Localized Prostate CancerR01CA140297 · NCI · UNIV OF MED/DENT NJ-R W JOHNSON MED SCH · PI MANNE, SHARON L · 2011 to 2016
$2.8M
Improving Marital Support For Couples Coping with CancerK05CA109008 · NCI · FOX CHASE CANCER CENTER · PI MANNE, SHARON L · 2004 to 2008
$520k
NCI NIH HHS K05 CA109008NCI NIH HHS P30 CA006927NCI NIH HHS R01 CA140297
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionFew couple-focused interventions have been developed to improve distress and relationship outcomes among men diagnosed with localized prostate cancer and their partners.

aimsWe examined the effects of a five-session Intimacy-Enhancing Therapy (IET) vs. Usual Care (UC) on the psychological and relationship functioning of men diagnosed with localized prostate cancer and their partners. Pre-intervention levels of psychological and relationship functioning were evaluated as moderators of intervention effects.

methodsSeventy-one survivors and their partners completed a baseline survey and were subsequently randomly assigned to receive five sessions of IET or UC (no treatment). Eight weeks after the baseline assessment, a follow-up survey was administered to survivor and partner.

main outcome measuresDistress, well-being, relationship satisfaction, relationship intimacy, and communication were investigated as the main outcomes.

resultsIET effects were largely moderated by pre-intervention psychosocial and relationship factors. Those survivors who had higher levels of cancer concerns at pretreatment had significantly reduced concerns following IET. Similar moderating effects for pre-intervention levels were reported for the effects of IET on self-disclosure, perceived partner disclosure, and perceived partner responsiveness. Among partners beginning the intervention with higher cancer-specific distress, lower marital satisfaction, lower intimacy, and poorer communication, IET improved these outcomes.

conclusionsIET had a marginally significant main effect upon survivor well-being but was effective among couples with fewer personal and relationship resources. Subsequent research is needed to replicate these findings with a larger sample and a longer follow-up.

Indexed as

Men's HealthPersonal SatisfactionPsychotherapySexual PartnersStress, PsychologicalAdaptation, PsychologicalFemaleHealth SurveysHumansMaleMental HealthMiddle AgedModels, PsychologicalPilot ProjectsProstatic NeoplasmsPsychometrics

Identifiers

PMID21210958
PMCPMC3070795
OpenAlexW2127644490

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.