Search

Aims: Overactive bladder management includes multiple therapeutic options with comparable efficacy but a range of administration modalities and side effects, creating an ideal setting for shared decision‐making. This study investigates patient and physician health beliefs surrounding decision‐making and expectations for overactive bladder with the aim of better understanding and ultimately improving decision‐making in overactive bladder care. Methods: Patient and physician participants completed a questionnaire followed by a semi‐structured interview to assess health beliefs surrounding decision making and expectations for overactive bladder treatment. The semi‐structured interview guide, developed in an iterative fashion by the authors, probed qualities of overactive bladder therapies patients and physicians valued, their process of treatment selection, and their experiences with therapies. Results: Patients (n = 20) frequently cited treatment invasiveness, efficacy, and safety as the most important qualities that influenced their decision when selecting overactive bladder therapy. Physicians (n = 12) frequently cited safety/contraindications, convenience, cost/insurance, and patient preference as the most important qualities. In our integration analysis, we identified four key themes associated with decision making in overactive bladder care: frustration with inaccessibility of overactive bladder treatments, discordant perception of patient education, diverging acceptability of expected outcomes, and lack of insight into other parties' decisional priorities and control preferences. Conclusions: While both patients and physicians desire to engage in a shared decision‐making process when selecting therapies for overactive bladder, this process is challenged by significant divergence between patient and physician viewpoint across key domains. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Rectal cancer (RC) patients experience unique sources of distress, including sexual dysfunction and body image concerns, which can also cause distress among partners. This preliminary study investigated patterns of psychological distress, sexual functioning, sexual distress, and relationship satisfaction among RC patient‐partner couples at pivotal points during cancer treatment. Methods: Twenty couples participated (N = 40). Patients and partners completed a series of validated measures of psychological distress (ET), sexual functioning (FSFI; IIEF), sexual distress (GMSEX; Sexual Distress Scale) and relationship satisfaction (GMREL) at time of diagnosis, 3 weeks after radiation, 4 weeks post‐surgery, and after chemotherapy and surgery for ostomy closure. Descriptive statistics, t‐tests, and repeated‐measures ANOVA were used to analyze scores over time, first for patients and partners, and then by sex. Results: Relationship satisfaction remained elevated over time. In this sample, 55% of patients and 78.9% of partners reported clinically significant rates of psychological distress at diagnosis, which decreased to 23% and 46% respectively at the last assessment. Sexual satisfaction and distress worsened for patients and partners between baseline and surgery for ostomy closure. Both male and female participants reported statistically significant declines in sexual function from baseline to end of treatment (p < 0.05). Discussion: Relative to relationship satisfaction, psychological and sexual health outcomes seem more vulnerable to the effects of RC treatment during the first year after diagnosis, both for patients and partners and for men and women. Results support the need for psychosocial care and sexual education/counseling for couples coping with RC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: Despite significant sexual dysfunction and distress after localized prostate cancer treatment, patients typically receive only physiologic erectile dysfunction management. The authors performed a randomized controlled trial of an online intervention supporting couples' posttreatment recovery of sexual intimacy. METHODS: Patients treated with surgery, radiation, or combined radiation and androgen deprivation therapy who had partners were recruited and randomized to an online intervention or a control group. The intervention, tailored to treatment type and sexual orientation, comprised 6 modules addressing expectations for sexual and emotional sequelae of treatment, rehabilitation, and guidance toward sexual intimacy recovery. Couples, recruited from 6 sites nationally, completed validated measures at the baseline and 3 and 6 months after treatment. Primary outcome group differences were assessed with t tests for individual outcomes. RESULTS: Among 142 randomized couples, 105 patients (mostly surgery) and 87 partners completed the 6‐month survey; this reflected challenges with recruitment and attrition. There were no differences between the intervention and control arms in Patient‐Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Global Satisfaction With Sex Life scores 6 months after treatment (the primary outcome). Three months after treatment, intervention patients and partners reported more engagement in penetrative and nonpenetrative sexual activities than controls. More than 73% of the intervention participants reported high or moderate satisfaction with module content; more than 85% would recommend the intervention to other couples. CONCLUSIONS: Online psychosexual support for couples can help couples to connect and experience sexual pleasure early after treatment despite patients' sexual dysfunction. Participants' high endorsement of the intervention reflects the importance of sexual health support to couples after prostate cancer treatment. LAY SUMMARY: This study tested a web‐based program supporting couples' sexual recovery of sexual intimacy after prostate cancer treatment.One hundred forty‐two couples were recruited and randomly assigned to the program (n = 60) or to a control group (n = 82).The program did not result in improvements in participants' satisfaction with their sex life 6 months after treatment, but couples in the intervention group engaged in sexual activity sooner after treatment than couples in the control group.Couples evaluated the program positively and would recommend it to others facing prostate cancer treatment. Couples coping with prostate cancer participated in a randomized controlled trial of a sexual recovery support program. Although participants assigned to the intervention were not more satisfied with their sex life 6 months after treatment, they re‐engaged in sexual activity earlier than a control group and found the program beneficial. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Little is known about how cancer impacts the employment status of patients' family supporters, or about associations between patients' health‐related quality of life, perceived financial burden, and supporters' employment trajectory. Methods: We surveyed patients with early stage breast cancer reported to the Georgia and Los Angeles SEER registries in 2014–15, and their spouse/partner or other family supporters. Patients and supporters were asked about employment impacts of the patient's cancer, and descriptive analyses of supporters' employment trajectories were generated. We measured patients' health‐related quality of life (HRQoL) using the PROMIS scale for global health. We measured patients' perceived financial burden attributed to cancer by asking them two questions regarding (i) their financial status since their breast cancer diagnosis and (ii) how much it was impacted by their breast cancer and treatment. Associations between patients' HRQoL, perceived financial burden, and supporters' employment status were assessed using linear mixed model regression analyses. Results: In total, 2502 patients (68% response rate) and 1203 supporters (70% response rate) responded; 1057 paired patient‐supporter dyads were included. Similar proportions of spouse/partner and other family supporters reported missed work and lost employment due to patients' cancer. After adjustment, lower HRQoL and an increased odds of perceived financial burden among patients were associated with changes in other family supporters' employment (both p < 0.05), but not with changes in spouses'/partners' employment. Lower HRQoL was also associated with changes in patients' own employment among patients with both types of supporters (both p < 0.001). An increased odds of perceived financial burden among patients was associated with changes in patients' employment only in those supported by other family members (p < 0.001). Conclusions: Both spouse/partner and other family supporters faced adverse employment outcomes due to patients' cancer. This contributes to worse HRQoL and greater perception of financial burden among patients, especially those whose supporter is not a spouse/partner. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: With over 3 million US prostate cancer survivors, ensuring high‐quality, coordinated cancer survivorship care is important. However, implementation of recommended team‐based cancer care has lagged, and determinants of quality care across primary and specialty care remain unclear. Guided by the theoretical domains framework (TDF), we explored multidisciplinary determinants of quality survivorship care in an integrated delivery system. Methods: We conducted semistructured interviews with primary (4) and specialty (7) care providers across 6 Veterans Health Administration clinic sites. Using template analysis, we coded interview transcripts into the TDF, mapping statements to specific constructs within each domain. We assessed whether each construct was perceived a barrier or facilitator, examining results for both primary care providers (PCPs) and prostate cancer specialists. Results: Cancer specialists and PCPs identified 2 primary TDF domains impacting their prostate cancer survivorship care: Knowledge and Environmental context and resources. Both groups noted knowledge (about survivorship care) and procedural knowledge (about how to deliver survivorship care) as positive determinants or facilitators, whereas resources/material resources (to deliver survivorship care) was noted as a negative determinant or barrier to care. Additional domains more commonly referenced by cancer specialists included Social/professional role and identity and Goals, while PCPs reported the domain Beliefs about capabilities as relevant. Conclusions: We used the TDF to identify several behavioral domains acting as determinants of high‐quality, team‐based prostate cancer survivorship care. These results can inform prostate cancer survivorship care plan content, and may guide tailored, multidisciplinary implementation strategies to improve survivorship care across the primary and specialty care interface. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Maximizing the quality and quantity of life among men with localized prostate cancer who are elderly and have competing comorbidities may be achieved more effectively, either by treating these patients definitively or by opting for observation rather than using primary androgen‐deprivation therapy. A better understanding of the optimal ways to de‐implement this low‐value cancer care appears to be warranted for both elderly patients, who have little to gain by it, and younger patients, who have more to lose by foregoing definitive treatment with surgery or radiation therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Despite the adverse effects that treatment for colorectal cancer can have on patients' quality of life and, in particular, their intimate relationships, very little research has been conducted on the psychosocial adjustment for both patients and their partners/spouses.Objectives: The aim of this systematic review was to examine dyadic studies of adjustment in couples in which one partner has been diagnosed with colorectal cancer.Methods: Pub Med, PsychINFO, MEDLINE, Social Sciences Abstracts (EBSCO), and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched for studies reporting quality of life outcomes for colorectal cancer patients and their partners/spouses. Only studies that included dyads in the sample were eligible for inclusion. The Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies was used to evaluate each study.Results: A total of 277 studies were identified, of which 9 studies met the inclusion criteria (N = 388 couples). The methodological quality of the studies was high in that they used standardized instruments validated with their samples, conducted dyadic data analyses (when appropriate), and used longitudinal designs. A synthesis of the studies revealed that (1) relationship factors (eg, support, communication, dyadic coping, and relationship satisfaction) affect adjustment to cancer; (2) cancer-related distress impacts each partner's adjustment or the relationship; and (3) gender, role (patient/caregiver), and clinical characteristics (treatment, mental health) can mediate adjustment to cancer.Conclusion: The quality of the relationship can influence patients' and their partners' adjustment to colorectal cancer. Psychosocial interventions that address relationship issues may be beneficial to couples facing the challenges of colorectal cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite an increasing number of prostate cancer survivors in Japan, the current delivery of prostate cancer survivorship care is insufficient and lacks a multidisciplinary approach. We carried out a study to characterize prostate cancer survivorship care in Japan, examine the Japanese workforce available to deliver survivorship care, introduce a conceptual framework for survivorship and identify opportunities to improve Japanese survivorship care. We systematically searched PubMed for prostate cancer survivorship care studies, including those from Japan. We also searched the internet for prostate cancer guidelines relevant to survivorship care. We found 392 articles, of which 71 were relevant, read in detail and reported here. In Japan, survivorship care is mostly provided by urologists. Primary care as a specialty does not exist in Japan, and there are no independent nurse practitioners or physician assistants to assist with survivorship care. Japanese quality of life studies characterize the long-term effects of prostate cancer treatment, but routine use of patient-reported outcomes is not common in Japan. In the USA, in light of a growing comprehensive awareness of challenges facing survivors and their providers, the American Cancer Society prostate cancer survivorship care guidelines serve as a tool for optimizing the management of long-term treatment effects and coordination of care. In order to deliver high-quality survivorship care in Japan, urologists need to establish collaborations with other disciplines within the delivery system. A multidisciplinary guideline for prostate cancer survivorship care in Japan appears warranted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND Integrating quality-of-life (QOL) outcomes into clinics may assist providers in identifying and responding to problems experienced by cancer survivors. To date, however, patient-reported outcomes (PROs) such as QOL are used infrequently to guide care. We integrated QOL assessments into a prostate cancer survivorship clinic and compared recovery and satisfaction among men managed in the survivorship clinic with those followed with more routine care. METHODS We conducted a before-after study comparing 235 men treated surgically for prostate cancer who received routine follow-up care with 102 men managed in a survivorship clinic characterized by point-of-care QOL reporting and integration of QOL scores (EPIC) following radical prostatectomy. We then assessed baseline and postprostatectomy QOL at 6 and 12 months, as well as patient satisfaction, and compared outcomes between groups. RESULTS Although baseline QOL was comparable, scores were generally higher among the survivorship group at 6 months and 1 year compared with those followed with routine care. In particular, sexual function scores were significantly higher among patients managed in the survivorship clinic (52.2 vs 33.6 at 1 year, P < .01). Satisfaction scores were consistently higher in the survivorship clinic group compared with the routine-care group (all P < .05). CONCLUSIONS Patient QOL and satisfaction were higher among men managed in a survivorship program, suggesting that disease-specific survivorship clinics that integrate QOL reporting into care pathways may yield better outcomes compared with less tailored approaches to patient care following cancer therapy. Cancer 2015;121:1484-1491. © 2014 American Cancer Society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Prostate cancer survivors approach 2.8 million in number and represent 1 in 5 of all cancer survivors in the United States. While guidelines exist for timely treatment and surveillance for recurrent disease, there is limited availability of guidelines that facilitate the provision of posttreatment clinical follow-up care to address the myriad of long-term and late effects that survivors may face. Based on recommendations set forth by a National Cancer Survivorship Resource Center expert panel, the American Cancer Society developed clinical follow-up care guidelines to facilitate the provision of posttreatment care by primary care clinicians. These guidelines were developed using a combined approach of evidence synthesis and expert consensus. Existing guidelines for health promotion, surveillance, and screening for second primary cancers were referenced when available. To promote comprehensive follow-up care and optimal health and quality of life for the posttreatment survivor, the guidelines address health promotion, surveillance for prostate cancer recurrence, screening for second primary cancers, long-term and late effects assessment and management, psychosocial issues, and care coordination among the oncology team, primary care clinicians, and nononcology specialists. A key challenge to the development of these guidelines was the limited availability of published evidence for management of prostate cancer survivors after treatment. Much of the evidence relies on studies with small sample sizes and retrospective analyses of facility-specific and population databases. CA Cancer J Clin 2014;64:225-249. © 2014 American Cancer Society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Studies of sexuality or sexual behavior in childhood cancer survivors tend to examine relationships or achievement of developmental milestones but not physiological response to cancer or treatment. The purpose of this study is to (1) identify prevalence and risk factors for sexual dysfunction in childhood cancer survivors, and (2) examine the extent to which sexual dysfunction may be associated with health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and psychosocial outcomes. Methods: Five hundred ninety-nine survivors age 18–39 years completed standardized measures of sexual functioning, HRQOL, psychological distress and life satisfaction. Descriptive statistics assessed prevalence of sexual symptoms. Bivariate analyses identified correlates of sexual symptoms and examined associations between symptoms and HRQOL/psychosocial outcomes. Results: Most survivors appear to be doing well, although 52% of female survivors and 32% of male survivors reported at least ‘a little of a problem' in one or more areas of sexual functioning. Mean symptom score for females was more than twice that of males. Sexual symptoms were associated with reporting health problems. Significant associations between sexual functioning and HRQOL outcomes were observed, with gender differences in strengths of association suggesting that males find sexual symptoms more distressing than do females. Conclusions: While most survivors appear to be doing well in this important life domain, some young adult survivors report sexual concerns. While female survivors may report more sexual symptoms than male survivors, males may experience more distress associated with sexual difficulties. Better-specified measures of sexual function, behavior and outcomes are needed for this young adult population. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Prostate cancer survivors approach 2.8 million in number and represent 1 in 5 of all cancer survivors in the United States. While guidelines exist for timely treatment and surveillance for recurrent disease, there is limited availability of guidelines that facilitate the provision of posttreatment clinical follow-up care to address the myriad of long-term and late effects that survivors may face. Based on recommendations set forth by a National Cancer Survivorship Resource Center expert panel, the American Cancer Society developed clinical follow-up care guidelines to facilitate the provision of posttreatment care by primary care clinicians. These guidelines were developed using a combined approach of evidence synthesis and expert consensus. Existing guidelines for health promotion, surveillance, and screening for second primary cancers were referenced when available. To promote comprehensive follow-up care and optimal health and quality of life for the posttreatment survivor, the guidelines address health promotion, surveillance for prostate cancer recurrence, screening for second primary cancers, long-term and late effects assessment and management, psychosocial issues, and care coordination among the oncology team, primary care clinicians, and nononcology specialists. A key challenge to the development of these guidelines was the limited availability of published evidence for management of prostate cancer survivors after treatment. Much of the evidence relies on studies with small sample sizes and retrospective analyses of facility-specific and population databases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]