Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28064386›Full record

Trial reportSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2017

Brief supportive-expressive group therapy for partners of men with early stage prostate cancer: lessons learned from a negative randomized controlled trial.

Linda E Carlson, Codie R Rouleau, Michael Speca, John Robinson, Barry D Bultz

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 31% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Exercise, supportive group therapy, and mood profile of Greek cancer patients: intervention effect and related comparisons.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2018
    Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Linda E CarlsonDepartment of Oncology, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, 1331 29St NW, Calgary, T2N 4N2, Alberta, Canada. l.carlson@ucalgary.ca.
Codie R RouleauDivision of Psychosocial Oncology, Tom Baker Cancer Centre, Cancer Control Alberta, Holy Cross Site 2202 2nd St SW, Calgary, T2S 3C1, Alberta, Canada.
Michael SpecaDepartment of Oncology, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, 1331 29St NW, Calgary, T2N 4N2, Alberta, Canada.
John RobinsonDepartment of Oncology, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, 1331 29St NW, Calgary, T2N 4N2, Alberta, Canada.
Barry D BultzDepartment of Oncology, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, 1331 29St NW, Calgary, T2N 4N2, Alberta, Canada.
University of Calgary · CAAlberta Cancer Foundation · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe purpose of this paper is to report the results of a negative randomized controlled trial, which piloted brief supportive-expressive therapy (SET) for partners of men with prostate cancer, and to discuss lessons learned for future clinical trials.

methodsPartners of men with newly diagnosed, non-metastatic prostate cancer were randomized to SET (n = 45) or usual care (n = 32). SET involved six weekly group sessions emphasizing emotional expression, social support, and finding meaning in the cancer experience. Measures of mood disturbance, marital satisfaction, and social support were administered to both partners and patients at baseline, post-program, and at 3- and 6-month follow-up.

resultsThere were no significant differences between SET and the control group for either patients or their wives on any outcome. Regardless of group membership, partners reported improvements in total mood disturbance (p = .011), tension (p < .001), anger (p = .041), confusion (p < .001), state anxiety (p = .001), and emotional support (p = .037), and patients reported improvements in tension (p = .003), emotional support (p = .047), positive interaction support (p = .004), and overall social support (p = .026).

conclusionsCompared to the natural course of recovery, SET did not improve psychosocial outcomes for either men with prostate cancer or their wives. Methodological challenges experienced in implementing this trial yield valuable lessons for future research, including designing interventions relevant to unique problems faced by specific groups, being closely guided by previous research, and the potential utility of screening for distress as an inclusion criteria in intervention trials.

Indexed as

AgedAnxietyCounselingFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedMind-Body TherapiesMood DisordersProstatic NeoplasmsPsychotherapy, GroupSexual PartnersSocial SupportSpousesMood disturbanceOncologyPartnersProstate cancerSupportive expressive therapy

Identifiers

PMID28064386
OpenAlexW2569672285

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.