Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23013404›Full record

Trial reportHealth and quality of life outcomes2012

A pilot randomized controlled trial of the feasibility of a self-directed coping skills intervention for couples facing prostate cancer: rationale and design.

Sylvie D Lambert, Afaf Girgis, Jane Turner, Patrick McElduff, Karen Kayser, Paula Vallentine

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Health and quality of life outcomes, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. "You need something like this to give you guidelines on what to do": patients' and partners' use and perceptions of a self-directed coping skills training resource.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2013
    Article
  15. Article
  16. 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 6 institutions in 2 countries.

Sylvie D LambertTranslational Cancer Research Unit, Ingham Institute for Applied Medical Research, South Western Sydney Clinical School, UNSW Medicine, The University of New South Wales, Liverpool, BC NSW, 2170, Australia.
Afaf Girgis
Jane Turner
Patrick McElduff
Karen Kayser
Paula Vallentine
Cancer Council NSW · AUHunter Medical Research Institute · AUIngham Institute · AUUniversity of Louisville · USUniversity of Queensland · AUUNSW Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlthough it is known both patients' and partners' reactions to a prostate cancer diagnosis include fear, uncertainty, anxiety and depression with patients' partners' reactions mutually determining how they cope with and adjust to the illness, few psychosocial interventions target couples. Those that are available tend to be led by highly trained professionals, limiting their accessibility and long-term sustainability. In addition, it is recognised that patients who might benefit from conventional face-to-face psychosocial interventions do not access these, either by preference or because of geographical or mobility barriers. Self-directed interventions can overcome some of these limitations and have been shown to contribute to patient well-being. This study will examine the feasibility of a self-directed, coping skills intervention for couples affected by cancer, called Coping-Together, and begin to explore its potential impact on couples' illness adjustment. The pilot version of Coping-Together includes a series of four booklets, a DVD, and a relaxation audio CD. METHODS/

designIn this double-blind, two-group, parallel, randomized controlled trial, 70 couples will be recruited within 4 months of a prostate cancer diagnosis through urology private practices and randomized to: 1) Coping-Together or 2) a minimal ethical care condition. Minimal ethical care condition couples will be mailed information booklets available at the Cancer Council New South Wales and a brochure for the Cancer Council Helpline. The primary outcome (anxiety) and additional secondary outcomes (distress, depression, dyadic adjustment, quality of life, illness or caregiving appraisal, self-efficacy, and dyadic and individual coping) will be assessed at baseline (before receiving study material) and 2 months post-baseline. Intention-to-treat and per protocol analysis will be conducted. DISCUSSION: As partners' distress rates exceed not only population norms, but also those reported by patients themselves, it is imperative that coping skills interventions target the couple as a unit and enhance both partners' ability to overcome cancer challenges. This pilot study will examine the feasibility and potential efficacy of Coping-Together in optimising couples' illness adjustment. This is one of the first feasibility studies to test this innovative coping intervention, which in turn will contribute to the larger literature advocating for psychosocial care of couples affected by prostate cancer.

trial registrationAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12611000438954.

Indexed as

Adaptation, PsychologicalSocial SupportDouble-Blind MethodFeasibility StudiesFemaleHealth EducationHotlinesHumansMaleNew South WalesOutcome Assessment, Health CarePamphletsPilot ProjectsProblem SolvingProstatic NeoplasmsPsychometrics

Identifiers

PMID23013404
PMCPMC3489876
OpenAlexW2166726748

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.