Assessing the Impact of the Prostate Cancer Patient Empowerment Program (PC-PEP) on Relationship Satisfaction, Quality of Life, and Support Group Participation: A Randomized Clinical Trial
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial
2.2. PC-PEP Intervention
2.3. Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS)
2.4. Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–Prostate (FACT-P)
2.5. Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy–Spiritual Well-Being (FACIT-Sp-12)
2.6. Weekly Adherence to Practicing Different Types of Intimacy with Their Partner
2.7. Sample Characteristics at Baseline
2.8. Prognostic Covariates
2.9. Sample Size Calculation and Methodological Considerations
2.10. Statistical Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Demographic Measures
3.2. Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS) Results
3.3. Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–Prostate (FACT-P) Results
3.4. Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy–Spiritual Well-Being (FACIT-Sp-12)
3.5. Adherence to Intimacy Exercises Results
3.6. Support Group Attendance Results
4. Discussion
4.1. Interpretation of the Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS) Results
4.2. Interpretation of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–Prostate (FACT-P) Results
4.3. Interpretation of the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy–Spiritual Well-Being (FACIT-Sp-12) Results
4.4. Interpretation of the Support Group Attendance Results
4.5. Limitations
5. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Canadian Cancer Statistics 2023. Available online: https://cdn.cancer.ca/-/media/files/research/cancer-statistics/2023-statistics/2023_PDF_EN.pdf (accessed on 13 August 2024).
- Ilie, G.; Rutledge, R.; Sweeney, E. Anxiety and depression symptoms in adult males in Atlantic Canada with or without a lifetime history of prostate cancer. Psychooncology 2020, 29, 280–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Chambers, S.K.; Ng, S.K.; Baade, P.; Aitken, J.F.; Hyde, M.K.; Wittert, G.; Frydenberg, J.D. Trajectories of quality of life, life satisfaction, and psychological adjustment after prostate cancer. Psychooncology 2017, 26, 1576–1585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sánchez Sánchez, E.; González Baena, A.C.; González Cáliz, C.; Caballero Paredes, F.; Moyano Calvo, J.L.; Castiñeiras Fernández, J. Prevalence of Anxiety and Depression in Prostate Cancer Patients and Their Spouses: An Unaddressed Reality. Prostate Cancer 2020, 2020, 4393175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Watts, S.; Leydon, G.; Birch, B.; Prescott, P.; Lai, L.; Eardley, S.; Lewith, G. Depression and anxiety in prostate cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis of prevalence rates. BMJ Open 2015, 4, e003901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Beck, A.M.; Robinson, J.W.; Carlson, L.E. Sexual intimacy in heterosexual couples after prostate cancer treatment: What we know and what we still need to learn. Urol. Oncol. 2009, 27, 137–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Resnick, M.J.; Penson, D.F. Quality of life with advanced metastatic prostate cancer. Urol. Clin. N. Am. 2012, 39, 505–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paterson, C.; Jones, M.; Rattray, J.; Lauder, W. Exploring the relationship between coping, social support and health-related quality of life for prostate cancer survivors: A review of the literature. Eur. J. Oncol. Nurs. 2013, 17, 750–759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scandurra, C.; Muzii, B.; La Rocca, R.; Di Bello, F.; Bottone, M.; Califano, G.; Longo, N.; Maldonato, N.M.; Mangiapia, F. Social Support Mediates the Relationship between Body Image Distress and Depressive Symptoms in Prostate Cancer Patients. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 4825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Spatuzzi, R.; Vespa, A.; Lorenzi, P.; Miccinesi, G.; Ricciuti, M.; Cifarelli, W.; Susi, M.; Fabrizio, T.; Ferrari, M.G.; Ottaviani, M.; et al. Evaluation of Social Support, Quality of Life, and Body Image in Women with Breast Cancer. Breast Care 2016, 11, 28–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gray, R.E.; Fitch, M.; Phillips, C.; Labrecque, M.; Fergus, K. To tell or not to tell: Patterns of disclosure among men with prostate cancer. Psychooncology 2000, 9, 273–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ramsey, S.D.; Zeliadt, S.B. Impact of prostate cancer on sexual relationships: A longitudinal perspective on intimate partners’ experiences. J. Sex. Med. 2013, 10, 3135–3143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ilie, G.; Rendon, R.; Mason, R.; MacDonald, C.; Kucharczyk, M.J.; Patil, N.; Bowes, D.; Bailly, G.; Bell, D.; Lawen, J.; et al. A Comprehensive 6-mo Prostate Cancer Patient Empowerment Program Decreases Psychological Distress among Men Undergoing Curative Prostate Cancer Treatment: A Randomized Clinical Trial. Eur. Urol. 2023, 83, 561–570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lawen, T.; Ilie, G.; Mason, R.; Rendon, R.; Spooner, J.; Champion, E.; Davis, J.; MacDonald, C.; Kucharczyk, M.J.; Patil, N.; et al. Six-Month Prostate Cancer Empowerment Program (PC-PEP) Improves Urinary Function: A Randomized Trial. Cancers 2024, 16, 958. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- MacNevin, W.; Ilie, G.; Rendon, R.; Mason, R.; Spooner, J.; Chedrawe, E.; Patil, N.; Bowes, D.; Bailly, G.; Bell, D.; et al. PC-PEP, a Comprehensive Daily Six-Month Home-Based Patient Empowerment Program Leads to Weight Loss in Men with Prostate Cancer: A Secondary Analysis of a Clinical Trial. Curr. Oncol. 2024, 31, 1667–1688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- MacDonald, C.; Ilie, G.; Kephart, G.; Rendon, R.; Mason, R.; Bailly, G.; Bell, D.; Patil, N.; Bowes, D.; Wilke, D.; et al. Mediating Effects of Self-Efficacy and Illness Perceptions on Mental Health in Men with Localized Prostate Cancer: A Secondary Analysis of the Prostate Cancer Patient Empowerment Program (PC-PEP) Randomized Controlled Trial. Cancers 2024, 16, 2352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ilie, G.; MacDonald, C.; Richman, H.; Rendon, R.; Mason, R.; Nuyens, A.; Bailly, G.; Bell, D.; Patil, N.; Bowes, D.; et al. Assessing the Efficacy of a 28-Day Comprehensive Online Prostate Cancer Patient Empowerment Program (PC-PEP) in Facilitating Engagement of Prostate Cancer Patients in Their Survivorship Care: A Qualitative Study. Curr. Oncol. 2023, 30, 8633–8652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ilie, G.; Mason, R.; Bell, D.; Bailly, G.; Rendon, R.A.; Mann, R.; Lawen, J.G.; Bowes, D.; Wilke, D.; Patil, N.; et al. Development and Initial Evaluation of a Multifaceted Intervention to Improve Mental Health and Quality of Life among Prostate Cancer Survivors. Int. J. Ment. Health Addict. 2020, 18, 1067–1080. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Spanier, G.B. Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales for assessing the quality of marriage and similar dyads. J. Marriage Fam. 1976, 38, 15–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cuenca Montesino, M.L.; Graña Gómez, J.L. Psychometric properties of the Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS) in a community sample of couples. Psicothema 2013, 25, 536–541. [Google Scholar]
- Esper, P.E.; Mo, F.E. Measuring quality of life in men with prostate cancer using the functional assessment of cancer therapy-prostate instrument. Urology 1997, 50, 920–928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wong, C.K.; Choi, E.P.; Tsu, J.H.L. Psychometric properties of Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate (FACT-P) in Chinese patients with prostate cancer. Qual. Life Res. 2015, 24, 2397–2402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bredle, J.M.; Salsman, J.M.; Debb, S.M.; Arnold, B.J.; Cella, D. Spiritual Well-Being as a Component of Health-Related Quality of Life: The Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy—Spiritual Well-Being Scale (FACIT-Sp). Religions 2011, 2, 77–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Munoz, A.R.; Salsman, J.M.; Stein, K.D.; Cella, D. Reference values of the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Spiritual Well-Being: A report from the American Cancer Society’s studies of cancer survivors. Cancer 2015, 121, 1838–1844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Fletcher, G.; Simpson, J.A.; Campbell, L.; Overall, N. The Science of Intimate Relationships; Wiley-Blackwell: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rice, S.M.; Oliffe, J.L.; Kelly, M.T.; Cormie, P.; Chambers, S.; Ogrodniczuk, J.S.; Kealy, D. Depression and Prostate Cancer: Examining Comorbidity and Male-Specific Symptoms. Am. J. Men’s Health 2018, 12, 1864–1872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kessler, R.C.; Andrews, G. Short screening scales to monitor population prevalences and trends in non-specific psychological distress. Psychol. Med. 2002, 32, 959–976. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Howes, J.; Simpson, J.; McLeod, D.; Digout, C.; Spencer, J.; Maginley, D.; Broadfield, L.; Cleary, J. Best Practice Guideline for the Management of Cancer-Related Distress in Adults. Supportive Care Cancer Site Team. Cancer Care Nova Scotia 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Kurian, C.J.; Leader, A.E.; Thong, M.S.Y. Examining relationships between age at diagnosis and health-related quality of life outcomes in prostate cancer survivors. BMC Public Health 2018, 18, 1060. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Luckenbaugh, A.N.; Wallis, C.J.D.; Huang, L.C.; Wittmann, D.; Klaassen, Z.; Zhao, Z.; Koyama, T.; Laviana, A.A.; Conwill, R.; Goodman, M. Association between Treatment for Localized Prostate Cancer and Mental Health Outcomes. J. Urol. 2022, 207, 1029–1037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wootten, A.C.; Abbott, J.A.M.; Chisholm, K.E.; Austin, D.W.; Klein, B.; McCabe, M.P.; Meyer, D.; Costello, A.J.; Murphy, D.G. My Road Ahead study protocol: A randomised controlled trial of an online psychological intervention for men following treatment for localised prostate cancer. BMC Cancer 2014, 14, 83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wootten, A.C.; Abbott, J.A.M.; Meyer, D.; Chrishold, K.E.; Austin, D.W.; Klein, B.; McCabe, M.; Murphy, D.G.; Costello, A.J. Preliminary Results of a Randomised Controlled Trial of an Online Psychological Intervention to Reduce Distress in Men Treated for Localised Prostate Cancer. Eur. Urol. 2015, 68, 471–479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hagemeyer, B.; Neyer, F.J. Assessing Implicit Relationship Standards in Romantic Relationships. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 2012, 103, 750–770. [Google Scholar]
- Manne, S.L.; Kashy, D.; Myers-Virtue, S.; Zaider, T.; Kissane, D.W.; Heckman, C.J.; Kim, I.; Penedo, F.; Lee, D. Relationship communication and the course of psychological outcomes among couples coping with localised prostate cancer. Eur. J. Cancer Care 2021, 30, e13401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Randall, A.K.; Bodenmann, G. The Role of Stress on Close Relationships and Marital Satisfaction. Clin. Psychol. Rev. 2009, 29, 105–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Walsh, E.A.; Boland, C.L.; Popok, P.J.; Pedreira, P.B.; Fox, R.S.; Moreno, P.I.; Yanez, B.; Penedo, F.J. Marital status and perceived stress in men with advanced prostate cancer: A randomized-controlled trial of cognitive behavioral stress management. J. Psychosom. Res. 2023, 167, 111198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
- Liu, Y.; Xia, Q.; Xia, J.; Zhu, H.; Jiang, H.; Chen, X.; Zheng, Y.; Zhang, F.; Li, S. The impact of marriage on the overall survival of prostate cancer patients: A Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) analysis. Can. Urol. Assoc. J. 2019, 13, E135–E139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Corsini, C.; Bergengren, O.; Carlsson, S.; Garmo, H.; Hjelm-Eriksson, M.; Fransson, P.; Kindblom, J.; Robinson, D.; Westerberg, M.; Stattin, P.; et al. Patient-reported Side Effects 1 Year After Radical Prostatectomy or Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer: A Register-based Nationwide Study. Eur. Urol. Oncol. 2024, 7, 605–613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hedestig, O.; Sandman, P.O.; Tomic, R.; Widmark, A. Living after radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer. A qualitative analysis of patient narratives. Acta. Oncol. 2005, 44, 679–686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wennick, A.; Jönsson, A.K.; Bratt, O.; Stenzelius, K. Everyday life after a radical prostatectomy—A qualitative study of men under 65 years of age. Eur. J. Oncol. Nurs. 2017, 30, 107–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mumuni, S.; O’Donnell, C.; Doody, O. The Experiences and Perspectives of Persons with Prostate Cancer and Their Partners: A Qualitative Evidence Synthesis Using Meta-Ethnography. Healthcare 2024, 12, 1490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
- Garland, S.N.; Carlson, L.E. Spiritual well-being in prostate cancer patients: A randomized controlled trial of a Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy program. Psychooncology 2013, 22, 2180–2189. [Google Scholar]
- Mollica, M.A.; Underwood, W., 3rd; Homish, G.G.; Homish, D.L.; Orom, H. Spirituality is associated with better prostate cancer treatment decision making experiences. J. Behav. Med. 2016, 39, 161–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Chambers, S.K.; Newton, R.U.; Girgis, A.; Nielsen, L.; Lepore, S.; Mihalopoulos, C.; Gardiner, R.; Galvão, D.A.; Occhipinti, S. Living with prostate cancer: Randomised controlled trial of a multimodal supportive care intervention for men with prostate cancer. BMC Cancer 2011, 11, 317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
- Weber, S.; Lorenz, C.; Hemmings, N. Improving Stress and Positive Mental Health at Work via an App-Based Intervention: A Large-Scale Multi-Center Randomized Control Trial. Front. Psychol. 2019, 10, 2745. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hyde, M.K.; Newton, R.U.; Galvão, D.A.; Gardiner, R.A.; Occhipinti, S.; Lowe, A.; Wittert, G.A.; Chambers, S.K. Men’s help-seeking in the first year after diagnosis of localised prostate cancer. Eur. J. Cancer Care 2017, 26, e12497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jackson, M.; Jones, D.; Dyson, J.; Macleod, U. Facilitated group work for people with long-term conditions: A systematic review of benefits from studies of group-work interventions. Br. J. Gen. Pract. 2019, 69, e363–e372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Waitlist Control | PC-PEP | p Value | |
---|---|---|---|
n = 60 | n = 59 | ||
Age (years) | 60, 67 (51, 82) | 59, 65 (50, 78) | 0.11 |
Age of partner (years) | 60, 65 (49, 81) | 59, 61 (41, 78) | 0.005 |
Length of relationship (years) | 60, 37 (1, 58) | 59, 31 (2, 55) | 0.031 |
Relationship status | 0.16 | ||
Married | 55, 92% | 49, 83% | |
Living with a partner/Dating/Not sure how to answer | 5, 8% | 10, 17% | |
Ethnicity, white | 60, 98% | 54, 91.5% | 0.089 |
Working full/part-time vs. retired or unemployed | 22, 37% | 21, 36% | 0.9 |
Total household income >$30,000 | 52, 87% | 49, 83% | 0.6 |
Occupation | |||
Specialized middle management vs. other | 17, 28% | 21, 36% | 0.4 |
Senior management vs. other | 14, 23% | 18, 31% | 0.4 |
Business/finance/administration vs. other | 7, 12% | 16, 27% | 0.033 |
Telecommunication/line cable workers vs. other | 4, 6.7% | 2, 3.4% | 0.4 |
Police officer vs. other | 2, 3.3% | 1, 1.7% | 0.6 |
Insurance/real estate/financial brokerage manager vs. other | 3, 5% | 1, 1.7% | 0.3 |
Firefighter vs. other | 1, 1.7% | 1, 1.7% | 1 |
Administrative and related vs. other | 17, 28% | 17, 29% | 0.9 |
Natural resources vs. other | 10, 17% | 7, 12% | 0.5 |
Metal processing/construction vs. other | 8, 13% | 4, 6.8% | 0.3 |
Transportation and related vs. other | 6, 10% | 9, 15% | 0.4 |
Protective services vs. other | 8, 13% | 9, 15% | 0.8 |
Health/personal care vs. other | 4, 6.7% | 3, 5.1% | 0.7 |
None of the above vs. other | 16, 27% | 19, 32% | 0.5 |
Charlson Comorbidity Index (age-adjusted) | 60, 2.7 (1, 4) | 59, 2.3 (1, 4) | 0.017 |
Time between randomization and active treatment (days) | 60, 70 (3, 173) | 59, 65 (8, 138) | 0.5 |
Treatment modality | |||
Surgery | 32, 53% | 26, 44% | 0.3 |
Radiation | 28, 47% | 33, 56% | |
Diagnosis and treatment-relevant characteristics | |||
Stage of cancer | |||
Risk Category (RP 1 + primary RT 2 ± HT 3) 4 | 0.7 | ||
Low | 0 | 0 | |
Intermediate | 16, 52% | 14, 56% | |
High | 15, 48% | 11, 44% | |
Prescribed ADT 5 | 21, 35% | 25,43% | 0.4 |
Dyadic Adjustment Scale Sum | 60, 118 (53, 145) | 59, 122 (52, 147) | 0.3 |
Dyadic Adjustment subscale (Consensus) | 60, 52 (29, 65) | 59, 54 (25, 65) | 0.3 |
Dyadic Adjustment subscale (Affection) | 60, 9.1 (0, 12) | 59, 9.5 (1, 12) | 0.7 |
Dyadic Adjustment subscale (Satisfaction) | 60, 40 (19, 49) | 59, 42 (22, 49) | 0.11 |
Dyadic Adjustment subscale (Cohesion) | 60, 17 (4, 24) | 59, 17 (4, 24) | 0.87 |
K10 6, screening positive for psychological distress and need for clinical treatment | 10, 17% | 8, 14% | 0.6 |
Distress Factors | |||
Work/school vs. all else | 11, 18% | 11, 19% | 1 |
Finances vs. all else | 5, 8.3% | 6, 10% | 0.7 |
Getting to and from appointments vs. all else | 5, 8.3% | 4, 6.8% | 0.8 |
Accommodations vs. all else | 4, 6.7% | 1, 1.7% | 0.18 |
Medical coverage vs. all else | 5, 8.3% | 7, 12% | 0.5 |
Feeling a burden to others vs. all else | 12, 20% | 10, 17% | 0.7 |
Worry about friends/family vs. all else | 16, 27% | 15, 25% | 0.9 |
Feeling alone vs. all else | 4, 6.7% | 1, 1.7% | 0.18 |
Relationship difficulties vs. all else | 9, 15% | 6, 10% | 0.4 |
Fear/worries vs. all else | 17, 28% | 17, 29% | 0.9 |
Sadness vs. all else | 6, 10% | 11, 19% | 0.18 |
Frustration/anger vs. all else | 9, 15% | 12, 20% | 0.5 |
Changes in appearance vs. all else | 5, 8.3% | 3, 5.1% | 0.5 |
Intimacy/sexuality vs. all else | 28, 47% | 26, 44% | 0.8 |
Meaning/purpose in life vs. all else | 2, 3.3% | 5, 8.5% | 0.2 |
Faith vs. all else | 1, 1.7% | 0, 0% | 0.3 |
Understanding my illness and/or treatment vs. all else | 8, 13% | 15, 25% | 0.095 |
Talking with the healthcare team vs. all else | 5, 8.3% | 6, 10% | 0.7 |
Making treatment decisions vs. all else | 11, 18% | 10, 17% | 0.8 |
Knowing about available resources vs. all else | 7, 12% | 6, 10% | 0.8 |
Concentration/memory vs. all else | 5, 8.3% | 4, 6.8% | 0.8 |
Sleep vs. all else | 12, 20% | 13, 22% | 0.8 |
Weight vs. all else | 8, 13% | 9, 15% | 0.8 |
Swallowing vs. all else | 1, 1.7% | 0, 0% | 0.3 |
Changes in who I am vs. all else | 8, 13% | 6, 10% | 0.6 |
Other vs. all else | 2, 3.3% | 2, 3.4% | 1 |
None of the above vs. all else | 11, 18% | 9, 15% | 0.7 |
Number of distress factors | 60, 3.7 (1, 15) | 59, 3.9 (1, 13) | 0.6 |
Overall psychological distress in the past week | 60, 3.2 (0, 8) | 59, 2.9 (0, 9) | 0.5 |
FACT-P 7 Sum Well-being | 60, 60 (35, 79) | 59, 62 (21, 78) | 0.3 |
FACT-P Social Well-being subscale | 60, 20 (3, 28) | 59, 22 (5, 28) | 0.1 |
FACT-P Emotional Well-being subscale | 60, 19 (4, 24) | 59, 19 (6, 24) | 0.9 |
FACT-P Functional Well-being subscale | 60, 21 (8, 28) | 59, 22 (6, 28) | 0.3 |
FACIT-Sp-12 8 Sum Well-being | 60, 32 (0, 46) | 59, 33 (13, 47) | 0.4 |
FACIT-Sp-12 Meaning subscale | 60, 14 (0, 16) | 59, 14 (7, 16) | 0.9 |
FACIT-Sp-12 Peace subscale | 60, 11 (0, 16) | 59, 12 (2, 16) | 0.3 |
FACIT-Sp-12 Faith subscale | 60, 6.5 (0, 16) | 59, 7.3 (0, 16) | 0.3 |
Sexually active in previous 3 months | 46, 77% | 43, 73% | 0.6 |
Techniques used to improve sex life | |||
None vs. some | 31, 52% | 34, 58% | 0.5 |
Penile injection therapy vs. none or other | 0, 0% | 1, 1.7% | 0.3 |
Viagra vs. none or other | 14, 23% | 13, 22% | 0.9 |
Sex toys vs. none or other | 4, 6.7% | 1, 1.7% | 0.18 |
Erection-independent sexual activities vs. none or other | 5, 8.3% | 3, 5.1% | 0.5 |
Support group attendance at baseline or ever | 1, 1.7% | 1, 1.7% | 1 |
A. Full Sample (n = 119) | Baseline to 6 Months | 6 months to 12 Months | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Level | Parameter Estimate | 95% Confidence Interval | p | Parameter Estimate | 95% Confidence Interval | p | ||
Lower | Upper | Lower | Upper | |||||
DAS Sum score | ||||||||
Group (Control vs. PC-PEP) | −6.3 | −14 | 1.02 | 0.091 | −6.9 | −14 | 0.55 | 0.069 |
Time | 0.3004 | −2.6 | 3.2 | 0.8 | 1.3 | −3.7 | 6.2 | 0.6 |
Time × Group (PC-PEP) | 1.2 | −2.9 | 5.3 | 0.6 | 1.6 | −5.4 | 8.7 | 0.7 |
Consensus score | ||||||||
Group (Control vs. PC-PEP) | −2.1 | −5.5 | 1.3 | 0.2 | −2.0 | −5.5 | 1.4 | 0.3 |
Time | 1.2 | −0.75 | 3.2 | 0.2 | 1.6 | −1.2 | 4.3 | 0.3 |
Time × Group (PC-PEP) | −0.34 | −3.1 | 2.4 | 0.8 | −0.29 | −4.1 | 3.6 | 0.9 |
Affection score | ||||||||
Group (Control vs. PC-PEP) | −0.59 | −1.6 | 0.39 | 0.2 | −0.40 | −1.3 | 0.54 | 0.4 |
Time | 0.11 | −0.39 | 0.60 | 0.7 | 0.29 | −0.34 | 0.91 | 0.4 |
Time × Group (PC-PEP) | 0.11 | −0.59 | 0.81 | 0.8 | −0.062 | −0.95 | 0.82 | 0.9 |
Satisfaction score | ||||||||
Group (Control vs. PC-PEP) | −2.2 | −4.6 | 0.097 | 0.060 | −2.8 | −5.2 | −0.44 | 0.021 |
Time | −0.26 | −1.5 | 1.0 | 0.7 | 0.44 | −1.1 | 2.0 | 0.6 |
Time × Group (PC-PEP) | 0.57 | −1.2 | 2.3 | 0.5 | 0.97 | −1.2 | 3.2 | 0.4 |
Cohesion score | ||||||||
Group (Control vs. PC-PEP) | −1.2 | −2.8 | 0.49 | 0.17 | -1.6 | -3.2 | 0.11 | 0.067 |
Time | −0.74 | −1.5 | 0.040 | 0.063 | −1.0 | −2.1 | 0.026 | 0.056 |
Time × Group (PC-PEP) | 0.70 | −0.40 | 1.8 | 0.2 | 0.96 | −0.53 | 2.5 | 0.2 |
B. Radical Prostatectomy (n = 57) | ||||||||
DAS Sum score | ||||||||
Group (Control vs. PC-PEP) | −16 | −25 | −5.9 | 0.002 | −16 | −26 | −5.9 | 0.002 |
Time | −2.2 | −7.1 | 2.7 | 0.3 | −2.5 | −9.9 | 4.9 | 0.5 |
Time × Group (PC-PEP) | 6.1 | −0.53 | 13 | 0.070 | 6.1 | −3.8 | 16 | 0.2 |
Consensus score | ||||||||
Group (Control vs. PC-PEP) | −5.5 | −9.3 | −1.7 | 0.006 | −6.5 | −11 | −2.3 | 0.003 |
Time | −0.48 | −2.7 | 1.7 | 0.7 | −1.3 | −4.8 | 2.3 | 0.5 |
Time × Group (PC-PEP) | 1.9 | −1.1 | 4.8 | 0.2 | 2.8 | −1.9 | 7.5 | 0.24 |
Affection score | ||||||||
Group (Control vs. PC-PEP) | −1.7 | −3.0 | −0.42 | 0.010 | −1.5 | −2.7 | −0.30 | 0.015 |
Time | −0.17 | −0.95 | 0.61 | 0.7 | −0.16 | −1.1 | 0.77 | 0.7 |
Time × Group (PC-PEP) | 0.72 | −0.33 | 1.8 | 0.17 | 0.50 | −0.75 | 1.8 | 0.4 |
Satisfaction score | ||||||||
Group (Control vs. PC-PEP) | −5.1 | −8.4 | −1.8 | 0.003 | −4.9 | −8.4 | −1.4 | 0.007 |
Time | −0.68 | −2.8 | 1.5 | 0.5 | −0.19 | −2.8 | 2.5 | 0.9 |
Time × Group (PC-PEP) | 2.1 | −0.76 | 5.0 | 0.15 | 1.7 | −1.8 | 5.3 | 0.3 |
Cohesion score | ||||||||
Group (Control vs. PC-PEP) | −3.2 | −5.5 | −0.77 | 0.010 | −3.1 | −5.5 | −0.71 | 0.012 |
Time | −0.80 | −1.9 | 0.28 | 0.14 | −0.87 | −2.3 | 0.54 | 0.2 |
Time × Group (PC-PEP) | 1.2 | −0.26 | 2.7 | 0.11 | 0.99 | −0.90 | 2.9 | 0.3 |
C. Radiation Therapy (n = 61) | ||||||||
DAS Sum score | ||||||||
Group (Control vs. PC-PEP) | 0.067 | −10 | 10 | 1.0 | −0.54 | −11 | 9.9 | 0.9 |
Time | 2.3 | −1.1 | 5.7 | 0.18 | 4.2 | −2.7 | 11 | 0.2 |
Time × Group (PC-PEP) | −3.4 | −8.5 | 1.6 | 0.17 | −1.9 | −12 | 8.2 | 0.7 |
Consensus | ||||||||
Group (Control vs. PC-PEP) | −0.36 | −5.7 | 4.9 | 0.9 | 0.97 | −4.3 | 6.3 | 0.7 |
Time | 2.6 | −0.56 | 5.8 | 0.10 | 3.8 | −0.29 | 7.9 | 0.068 |
Time × Group (PC-PEP) | −2.2 | −6.8 | 2.5 | 0.4 | −2.7 | −8.7 | 3.4 | 0.4 |
Affection score | ||||||||
Group (Control vs. PC-PEP) | 0.21 | −1.2 | 1.6 | 0.8 | 0.43 | −0.99 | 1.9 | 0.6 |
Time | 0.33 | −0.32 | 0.98 | 0.3 | 0.64 | −0.24 | 1.5 | 0.2 |
Time × Group (PC-PEP) | −0.47 | −1.4 | 0.48 | 0.3 | −0.53 | −1.8 | 0.76 | 0.4 |
Satisfaction score | ||||||||
Group (Control vs. PC-PEP) | −0.11 | −3.2 | 3.0 | 1 | −1.5 | −4.7 | 1.7 | 0.3 |
Time | 0.11 | −1.3 | 1.5 | 0.9 | 0.94 | −0.96 | 2.8 | 0.3 |
Time × Group (PC-PEP) | −1.1 | −3.2 | 1.0 | 0.3 | 0.35 | −2.5 | 3.2 | 0.8 |
Cohesion score | ||||||||
Group (Control vs. PC-PEP) | 0.42 | −1.9 | 2.7 | 0.7 | −0.40 | −2.8 | 2.0 | 0.7 |
Time | −0.68 | −1.8 | 0.46 | 0.2 | −1.2 | −2.7 | 0.44 | 0.2 |
Time × Group (PC-PEP) | 0.18 | −1.5 | 1.9 | 0.8 | 0.94 | −1.4 | 3.3 | 0.4 |
A. Full Sample (N = 119) | Baseline to 6 Months | 6 Months to 12 Months | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Level | Parameter Estimate | 95% Confidence Interval | p | Parameter Estimate | 95% Confidence Interval | p | ||
Lower | Upper | Lower | Upper | |||||
FACT-P Sum Score | ||||||||
Group (Control vs. PC-PEP) | −4.2 | −8.7 | 0.30 | 0.067 | −5.7 | −10 | −1.1 | 0.016 |
Time | −2.3 | −4.9 | 0.33 | 0.086 | −1.6 | −5.0 | 1.7 | 0.3 |
Time × Group (PC-PEP) | 1.8 | −1.9 | 5.4 | 0.34 | 3.4 | −1.3 | 8.1 | 0.15 |
FACT-P Social Well-being Score | ||||||||
Group (Control vs. PC-PEP) | −1.6 | −3.5 | 0.32 | 0.10 | −1.3 | −3.3 | 0.68 | 0.2 |
Time | 0.46 | −0.60 | 1.5 | 0.39 | 1.0 | −0.41 | 2.4 | 0.16 |
Time × Group (PC-PEP) | −0.19 | −1.7 | 1.3 | 0.8 | −0.37 | −2.4 | 1.6 | 0.7 |
FACT-P Emotional Well-being Score | ||||||||
Group (Control vs. PC-PEP) | −1.2 | −2.7 | 0.19 | 0.090 | −1.8 | −3.2 | −0.27 | 0.020 |
Time | −2.2 | −3.4 | −1.1 | <0.001 | −2.2 | −3.4 | −1.0 | <0.001 |
Time × Group (PC-PEP) | 1.4 | −0.27 | 3.0 | 0.10 | 1.7 | 0.10 | 3.4 | 0.038 |
FACT-P Functional Well-being Score | ||||||||
Group (Control vs. PC-PEP) | −1.4 | −3.4 | 0.60 | 0.17 | −2.7 | −4.7 | −0.63 | 0.011 |
Time | −0.50 | −1.7 | 0.71 | 0.4 | −0.46 | −1.9 | 1.0 | 0.5 |
Time × Group (PC-PEP) | 0.62 | −1.1 | 2.3 | 0.5 | 2.0 | −0.026 | 4.1 | 0.053 |
FACIT-Sp-12 Sum Score | ||||||||
Group (Control vs. PC-PEP) | −3.7 | −7.0 | −0.42 | 0.028 | −4.2 | −7.6 | −0.70 | 0.019 |
Time | −2.1 | −3.9 | −0.34 | 0.020 | −1.4 | −3.9 | 1.1 | 0.3 |
Time × Group (PC-PEP) | 1.7 | −0.79 | 4.2 | 0.18 | 2.2 | −1.3 | 5.7 | 0.2 |
FACIT-Sp-12 Meaning Score | ||||||||
Group (Control vs. PC-PEP) | −0.54 | −1.6 | 0.55 | 0.3 | −1.1 | −2.3 | 0.10 | 0.071 |
Time | 0.20 | −0.50 | 0.90 | 0.6 | 0.66 | −0.28 | 1.6 | 0.17 |
Time × Group (PC-PEP) | 0.096 | −0.89 | 1.1 | 0.9 | 0.70 | −0.62 | 2.0 | 0.3 |
FACIT-Sp-12 Peace Score | ||||||||
Group (Control vs. PC-PEP) | −1.1 | −2.4 | 0.11 | 0.074 | −2.1 | −3.4 | −0.84 | 0.001 |
Time | −0.70 | −1.4 | 0.027 | 0.059 | −0.74 | −1.6 | 0.12 | 0.093 |
Time × Group (PC-PEP) | 0.32 | −0.71 | 1.4 | 0.5 | 1.3 | 0.078 | 2.5 | 0.037 |
FACIT-Sp-12 Faith Score | ||||||||
Group (Control vs. PC-PEP) | −2.0 | −3.8 | −0.28 | 0.023 | −0.93 | −2.7 | 0.83 | 0.3 |
Time | −1.6 | −2.6 | −0.71 | <0.001 | −1.3 | −2.5 | −0.093 | 0.035 |
Time × Group (PC-PEP) | 1.3 | 0.00060 | 2.6 | 0.050 | 0.18 | −1.5 | 1.9 | 0.8 |
B. Radical Prostatectomy (n = 57) | ||||||||
FACT-P Sum Score | ||||||||
Group (Control vs. PC-PEP) | −11 | −17 | −5.1 | <0.001 | −8.0 | −14 | −2.3 | 0.007 |
Time | −2.3 | −6.5 | 2.0 | 0.3 | −1.4 | −5.5 | 2.6 | 0.5 |
Time × Group (PC-PEP) | 4.6 | −1.0 | 10 | 0.11 | 1.8 | −3.7 | 7.2 | 0.5 |
FACT-P Social Well-being Score | ||||||||
Group (Control vs. PC-PEP) | −4.1 | −6.5 | −1.6 | 0.002 | −2.5 | −4.9 | −0.064 | 0.044 |
Time | 0.60 | −0.95 | 2.2 | 0.4 | 1.4 | −0.35 | 3.1 | 0.12 |
Time × Group (PC-PEP) | 0.71 | −1.4 | 2.8 | 0.5 | −0.82 | −3.1 | 1.5 | 0.5 |
FACT-P Emotional Well-being Score | ||||||||
Group (Control vs. PC-PEP) | −2.6 | −4.8 | −0.34 | 0.024 | −1.7 | −3.7 | 0.30 | 0.095 |
Time | −1.8 | −3.7 | 0.093 | 0.062 | −2.0 | −3.5 | −0.51 | 0.009 |
Time × Group (PC-PEP) | 1.7 | −0.80 | 4.3 | 0.2 | 0.85 | −1.2 | 2.8 | 0.4 |
FACT-P Functional Well-being Score | ||||||||
Group (Control vs. PC-PEP) | −4.4 | −6.9 | −1.8 | 0.001 | −3.8 | −6.4 | −1.2 | 0.004 |
Time | −1.1 | −3.1 | 0.98 | 0.3 | −0.79 | −2.7 | 1.1 | 0.4 |
Time × Group (PC-PEP) | 2.2 | −0.56 | 5.0 | 0.12 | 1.7 | −0.86 | 4.3 | 0.2 |
FACIT-Sp-12 Sum Score | ||||||||
Group (Control vs. PC-PEP) | −6.6 | −11 | −2.2 | 0.004 | −5.8 | −10 | −1.2 | 0.014 |
Time | −3.0 | −5.5 | −0.53 | 0.019 | −2.2 | −5.3 | 0.91 | 0.16 |
Time × Group (PC-PEP) | 3.4 | 0.029 | 6.7 | 0.048 | 2.5 | −1.7 | 6.6 | 0.2 |
FACIT-Sp-12 Meaning Score | ||||||||
Group (Control vs. PC-PEP) | −1.5 | −2.9 | −0.13 | 0.033 | −1.2 | −2.7 | 0.36 | 0.13 |
Time | −0.15 | −1.2 | 0.85 | 0.8 | 0.60 | −0.51 | 1.7 | 0.3 |
Time × Group (PC-PEP) | 0.90 | −0.44 | 2.3 | 0.18 | 0.53 | −0.96 | 2.0 | 0.5 |
FACIT-Sp-12 Peace Score | ||||||||
Group (Control vs. PC-PEP) | −2.6 | −4.3 | −0.95 | 0.002 | −2.9 | −4.7 | −1.2 | 0.001 |
Time | −0.98 | −2.1 | 0.14 | 0.086 | −0.95 | −1.9 | 0.028 | 0.057 |
Time × Group (PC-PEP) | 1.1 | −0.40 | 2.6 | 0.15 | 1.4 | 0.049 | 2.7 | 0.042 |
FACIT-Sp-12 Faith Score | ||||||||
Group (Control vs. PC-PEP) | −2.5 | −4.8 | −0.18 | 0.035 | −1.7 | −4.0 | 0.61 | 0.15 |
Time | −1.9 | −3.3 | −0.57 | 0.006 | −1.9 | −3.7 | 0.016 | 0.052 |
Time × Group (PC-PEP) | 1.4 | −0.42 | 3.2 | 0.13 | 0.57 | −1.9 | 3.1 | 0.7 |
C. Radiation Therapy (n = 61) | ||||||||
FACT-P Sum Score | ||||||||
Group (Control vs. PC-PEP) | 2.2 | −4.4 | 9.0 | 0.5 | −3.7 | −11 | 3.7 | 0.3 |
Time | −2.2 | −5.4 | 0.90 | 0.16 | −1.8 | −7.0 | 3.5 | 0.5 |
Time × Group (PC-PEP) | −1.5 | −6.2 | 3.1 | 0.5 | 5.2 | −2.6 | 13 | 0.19 |
FACT-P Social Well-being Score | ||||||||
Group (Control vs. PC-PEP) | 0.76 | −2.1 | 3.7 | 0.6 | −0.12 | −3.3 | 3.0 | 0.9 |
Time | 0.36 | −1.1 | 1.8 | 0.6 | 0.76 | −1.5 | 3.0 | 0.5 |
Time × Group (PC-PEP) | −1.3 | −3.4 | 0.84 | 0.2 | −0.0076 | −3.3 | 3.3 | 1.0 |
FACT-P Emotional Well-being Score | ||||||||
Group (Control vs. PC-PEP) | 0.17 | −1.7 | 2.0 | 0.9 | −1.8 | −4.1 | 0.47 | 0.12 |
Time | −2.6 | −4.0 | −1.1 | <0.001 | −2.3 | −4.1 | −0.58 | 0.010 |
Time × Group (PC-PEP) | 0.72 | −1.4 | 2.8 | 0.5 | 2.7 | 0.059 | 5.3 | 0.045 |
FACT-P Functional Well-being Score | ||||||||
Group (Control vs. PC-PEP) | 1.3 | −1.7 | 4.3 | 0.4 | −1.8 | −5.0 | 1.4 | 0.3 |
Time | −0.061 | −1.5 | 1.4 | 0.9 | −0.18 | −2.4 | 2.0 | 0.9 |
Time × Group (PC-PEP) | −0.98 | −3.1 | 1.1 | 0.4 | 2.5 | −0.78 | 5.8 | 0.13 |
FACIT-Sp-12 Sum Score | ||||||||
Group (Control vs. PC-PEP) | −1.6 | −6.4 | 3.2 | 0.5 | −2.9 | −8.2 | 2.3 | 0.3 |
Time | −1.4 | −4.0 | 1.2 | 0.3 | −0.67 | −4.6 | 3.2 | 0.7 |
Time × Group (PC-PEP) | 0.11 | −3.7 | 3.9 | 1.0 | 2.1 | −3.6 | 7.9 | 0.5 |
FACIT-Sp-12 Meaning Score | ||||||||
Group (Control vs. PC-PEP) | 0.18 | −1.5 | 1.8 | 0.8 | −1.3 | −3.2 | 0.64 | 0.19 |
Time | 0.49 | −0.50 | 1.5 | 0.3 | 0.73 | −0.78 | 2.2 | 0.3 |
Time × Group (PC-PEP) | −0.70 | −2.2 | 0.76 | 0.3 | 0.92 | −1.3 | 3.1 | 0.4 |
FACIT-Sp-12 Peace Score | ||||||||
Group (Control vs. PC-PEP) | 0.024 | −1.8 | 1.8 | 1.0 | −1.6 | −3.5 | 0.35 | 0.11 |
Time | −0.49 | −1.5 | 0.49 | 0.3 | −0.55 | −1.9 | 0.85 | 0.4 |
Time × Group (PC-PEP) | −0.48 | −1.9 | 0.96 | 0.5 | 1.3 | −0.79 | 3.3 | 0.2 |
FACIT-Sp-12 Faith Score | ||||||||
Group (Control vs. PC-PEP) | −1.8 | −4.6 | 0.92 | 0.19 | −0.10 | −2.8 | 2.6 | 0.9 |
Time | −1.4 | −2.7 | −0.098 | 0.035 | −0.85 | −2.4 | 0.73 | 0.3 |
Time × Group (PC-PEP) | 1.3 | −0.63 | 3.2 | 0.18 | −0.044 | −2.4 | 2.3 | 1.0 |
Tests of Fixed Effects | |||
---|---|---|---|
Effect | df | F | p-Value |
Emotional intimacy engagement—Average number of days per week | |||
Time | 1.68 | 0.40 | 0.53 |
Group | 1.75 | 2.36 | 0.13 |
Group × Time | 1.68 | 0.14 | 0.71 |
Intelectual intimacy engagement—Average number of days per week | |||
Time | 1.74 | 1.74 | 0.19 |
Group | 1.75 | 1.21 | 0.28 |
Group × Time | 1.74 | 0.84 | 0.36 |
Physical intimacy engagement—Average number of days per week | |||
Time | 1.63 | 6.53 | 0.013 |
Group | 1.83 | 1.25 | 0.27 |
Group × Time | 1.63 | 2.57 | 0.11 |
Physical intimacy engagement—Average number of days per week 1 | |||
Time | 1.69 | 8.13 | 0.006 |
Group | 1.89 | 2.23 | 0.14 |
Recreational intimacy engagement—Average number of days per week | |||
Time | 1.97 | 7.00 | 0.01 |
Group | 1.93 | 0.93 | 0.34 |
Group × Time | 1.97 | 0.33 | 0.57 |
Recreational intimacy engagement—Average number of days per week 1 | |||
Time | 1.82 | 8.98 | 0.004 |
Group | 1.96 | 1.30 | 0.26 |
Self intimacy engagement—Average number of days per week | |||
Time | 1.60 | 0.17 | 0.68 |
Group | 1.86 | 0.55 | 0.46 |
Group × Time | 1.60 | 1.95 | 0.17 |
Other types of intimacy engagement—Average number of days per week | |||
Time | 1.75 | 0.11 | 0.74 |
Group | 1.91 | 0.72 | 0.40 |
Group × Time | 1.75 | 0.012 | 0.91 |
β | t | p | OR (95% CI) | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Physical intimacy engagement—Average number of days per week | ||||
Time | 0.038 | 2.85 | 0.006 | 1.04 (1.01–1.07) |
Recreational intimacy engagement—Average number of days per week | ||||
Time | 0.028 | 3.00 | 0.004 | 1.03 (1.01–1.05) |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Burgher, C.; Ilie, G.; Mason, R.; Rendon, R.; Kokorovic, A.; Bailly, G.; Patil, N.; Bowes, D.; Wilke, D.; MacDonald, C.; et al. Assessing the Impact of the Prostate Cancer Patient Empowerment Program (PC-PEP) on Relationship Satisfaction, Quality of Life, and Support Group Participation: A Randomized Clinical Trial. Curr. Oncol. 2024, 31, 6445-6474. https://doi.org/10.3390/curroncol31100479
Burgher C, Ilie G, Mason R, Rendon R, Kokorovic A, Bailly G, Patil N, Bowes D, Wilke D, MacDonald C, et al. Assessing the Impact of the Prostate Cancer Patient Empowerment Program (PC-PEP) on Relationship Satisfaction, Quality of Life, and Support Group Participation: A Randomized Clinical Trial. Current Oncology. 2024; 31(10):6445-6474. https://doi.org/10.3390/curroncol31100479
Chicago/Turabian StyleBurgher, Cory, Gabriela Ilie, Ross Mason, Ricardo Rendon, Andrea Kokorovic, Greg Bailly, Nikhilesh Patil, David Bowes, Derek Wilke, Cody MacDonald, and et al. 2024. "Assessing the Impact of the Prostate Cancer Patient Empowerment Program (PC-PEP) on Relationship Satisfaction, Quality of Life, and Support Group Participation: A Randomized Clinical Trial" Current Oncology 31, no. 10: 6445-6474. https://doi.org/10.3390/curroncol31100479