ArticleBladder cancer (Amsterdam, Netherlands)
Difficult conversations in bladder cancer survivorship: Integrating mental health and intimacy into routine urologic care.
Article in Bladder cancer (Amsterdam, Netherlands). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Bladder cancer survivorship extends beyond oncologic control and includes significant psychological distress, demoralization, sexual dysfunction, and identity disruption. Despite their clinical relevance, structured approaches to difficult conversations in bladder cancer care remain inconsistent. Objective: To develop interdisciplinary consensus recommendations for integrating structured communication regarding mental health and intimacy into routine bladder cancer care. Methods: A multidisciplinary breakout session was convened during the 2025 Bladder Cancer Advocacy Network (BCAN) Think Tank. Participants included urologists, medical oncologists, psychiatrists, sexual medicine specialists, advanced practice providers, nurses, social workers, and patient advocates. The session combined didactic presentations with a moderated panel discussion structured around six predefined domains, followed by iterative refinement of consensus statements through follow up correspondence among the discussion leaders. Results: Consensus was achieved across six core domains: normalization of psychosocial discussions, routine screening, differentiation between depression and demoralization, structured sexual health counseling, early multidisciplinary referral pathways, and team-based survivorship implementation. A practical implementation framework was developed to integrate these domains into routine urologic practice. Conclusion: Difficult conversations are central to high-quality bladder cancer care. As practice-changing perioperative and metastatic therapies extend survival for a growing population of bladder cancer survivors, structured communication about mental health and intimacy becomes increasingly central to comprehensive care. The BCAN consensus provides structured, implementable recommendations to standardize communication around mental health and intimacy, with implications for survivorship outcomes and future research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.