Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26184499›Full record

ArticleSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2016

A pilot, multisite, randomized controlled trial of a self-directed coping skills training intervention for couples facing prostate cancer: accrual, retention, and data collection issues.

Sylvie D Lambert, Patrick McElduff, Afaf Girgis, Janelle V Levesque, Tim W Regan, Jane Turner, Hayley Candler, Cathrine Mihalopoulos, Sophy T F Shih, Karen Kayser and 1 more

Open access · greenAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 9 pooled it
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 47 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. 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
  7. Pooled it
  8. Association between dyadic interventions and outcomes in cancer patients: a meta-analysis.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2019
    Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Brief supportive-expressive group therapy for partners of men with early stage prostate cancer: lessons learned from a negative randomized controlled trial.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2017
    Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  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

11 authors at 7 institutions in 3 countries.

Sylvie D LambertIngram School of Nursing, McGill University, Wilson Hall, 3506 University Street, Montreal, QC, H3A 2A7, Canada. Sylvie.lambert@mcgill.ca.
Patrick McElduffSchool of Medicine and Public Health, The University of Newcastle, HMRI Building, John Hunter Hospital Campus, New Lambton Heights, NSW, 2305, Australia.
Afaf GirgisPsycho-Oncology Research Group, Ingham Institute for Applied Medical Research, South Western Sydney Clinical School, UNSW Medicine, The University of New South Wales, Locked Bag 7103, Liverpool, NSW, 1871, Australia.
Janelle V LevesquePsycho-Oncology Research Group, Ingham Institute for Applied Medical Research, South Western Sydney Clinical School, UNSW Medicine, The University of New South Wales, Locked Bag 7103, Liverpool, NSW, 1871, Australia.
Tim W ReganPriority Research Centre for Health Behaviour, The University of Newcastle, University Drive, Callaghan, New South Wales, 2308, Australia.
Jane TurnerThe University of Queensland, Mental Health Centre K Floor, Herston, QLD, 4029, Australia.
Hayley CandlerPsycho-Oncology Research Group, Ingham Institute for Applied Medical Research, South Western Sydney Clinical School, UNSW Medicine, The University of New South Wales, Locked Bag 7103, Liverpool, NSW, 1871, Australia.
Cathrine MihalopoulosDeakin Health Economics, Faculty of Health, Deakin University, 221 Burwood Hwy, Burwood, VIC, 3125, Australia.
Sophy T F ShihDeakin Health Economics, Faculty of Health, Deakin University, 221 Burwood Hwy, Burwood, VIC, 3125, Australia.
Karen KayserKent School of Social Work, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY, 40292, USA.
Peter ChongLake Macquarie Urology, Level 3, Suite 2 20 Smart Street, Charlestown, NSW, 2290, Australia.
UNSW Sydney · AUDeakin University · AUUniversity of Newcastle Australia · AUIngham Institute · AULake Macquarie Private Hospital · AUUniversity of Louisville Hospital · USUniversity of Queensland · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo examine the acceptability of the methods used to evaluate Coping-Together, one of the first self-directed coping skill intervention for couples facing cancer, and to collect preliminary efficacy data.

methodsForty-two couples, randomized to a minimal ethical care (MEC) condition or to Coping-Together, completed a survey at baseline and 2 months after, a cost diary, and a process evaluation phone interview.

resultsOne hundred seventy patients were referred to the study. However, 57 couples did not meet all eligibility criteria, and 51 refused study participation. On average, two to three couples were randomized per month, and on average it took 26 days to enrol a couple in the study. Two couples withdrew from MEC, none from Coping-Together. Only 44 % of the cost diaries were completed, and 55 % of patients and 60 % of partners found the surveys too long, and this despite the follow-up survey being five pages shorter than the baseline one. Trends in favor of Coping-Together were noted for both patients and their partners.

conclusionsThis study identified the challenges of conducting dyadic research, and a number of suggestions were put forward for future studies, including to question whether distress screening was necessary and what kind of control group might be more appropriate in future studies.

Indexed as

Adaptation, PsychologicalProstatic NeoplasmsDouble-Blind MethodFamily CharacteristicsHumansMaleMiddle AgedMulticenter Studies as TopicPilot ProjectsResearch DesignSelf CareSurveys and QuestionnairesCaregiversCopingPartnersPilot studySelf-careSelf-directed intervention

Identifiers

PMID26184499
OpenAlexW2142149357

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.