Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30852854›Full record

Trial reportBritish journal of health psychology2019

Couple-focused interventions for men with localized prostate cancer and their spouses: A randomized clinical trial.

Sharon L Manne, Deborah A Kashy, Talia Zaider, David Kissane, David Lee, Isaac Y Kim, Carolyn J Heckman, Frank J Penedo, Evangelynn Murphy, Shannon Myers Virtue

Open access · greenAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in British journal of health psychology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 10 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 10 pooled it
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 43 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. 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
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. 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
  10. Pooled it
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  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

10 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Sharon L ManneRutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-9304-7822
Deborah A KashyMichigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, USA.
Talia ZaiderDepartment of Psychiatry & Behavioral Sciences, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA.
David KissaneDepartment of Psychiatry & Behavioral Sciences, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA.
David LeePenn Urology, Penn Presbyterian Medical Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Isaac Y KimRutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA.
Carolyn J HeckmanRutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA.
Frank J PenedoRobert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Evangelynn MurphyRutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA.
Shannon Myers VirtueHelen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, Delaware, USA.
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey · USMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center · USMichigan State University · USNorthwestern University · USPenn Presbyterian Medical Center · US

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI Nicholas D Socci · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
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
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748NCI NIH HHS R01 CA140297
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesFew couple-focused interventions have improved psychological and relationship functioning among men diagnosed with localized prostate cancer and their spouses. This study compared the impact of intimacy-enhancing therapy (IET), a general health and wellness intervention (GHW), and usual care (UC) on the psychological and relationship functioning of localized prostate cancer patients and their partners. Relationship length, relationship satisfaction, and patient masculinity were evaluated as moderators.

designThis study was a randomized clinical trial with three study arms and four assessment time points.

methodsA total of 237 patients and partners were randomly assigned to receive IET, GHW, or UC. Participants completed measures of psychological functioning and relationship satisfaction at baseline, 5 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months post-baseline. Primary outcomes were psychological adjustment, depression, cancer-specific distress, cancer concerns, and relationship satisfaction.

resultsSpouses in IET showed greater increases in relationship satisfaction than spouses in GHW and UC between the baseline and 5-week follow-up. Among patients in longer relationships, significant increases in psychological adjustment were found in both treatments compared to UC. Among spouses in longer relationships, psychological adjustment increased in both IET and UC but declined in GHW.

conclusionsIntimacy-enhancing therapy did not show an impact on general or cancer-specific distress, but did show an early impact on relationship satisfaction among spouses. IET was superior to UC for patients in longer relationships. It will be important for researchers to understand which couple-focused interventions benefits both patients and spouses and to identify characteristics of patients, partners, and couples who may not benefit from psychological treatments. Statement of contribution What is already known on this subject? Men diagnosed with localized prostate cancer report lower health-related quality of life and both patients and spouses report elevated distress. Relationship communication plays a role in couples' psychological adaptation to prostate cancer. Couple-focused interventions have illustrated an impact on relationship communication. There are no studies comparing different couple-focused interventions. What does this study add? Intimacy-enhancing therapy was not superior to no treatment or a comparison treatment for the broad range of psychological and relationship outcomes. Intimacy-enhancing therapy was superior to no treatment for patients in longer-term relationship. The general health and wellness intervention was not beneficial for men in shorter relationships and for men who did not endorse traditional masculine norms.

Indexed as

Adaptation, PsychologicalCouples TherapyHumansMaleMiddle AgedPersonal SatisfactionProstatic NeoplasmsQuality of LifeSpousescouples’ therapygeneral health and wellness interventionintimacy-enhancing therapyprostate cancerpsychological intervention

Identifiers

PMID30852854
PMCPMC8279429
OpenAlexW2922510744

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.