Research concerning gay and bisexual men diagnosed with prostate cancer is sparse. An online focus group was conducted over a 4-week period with participants responding to a range of discussion questions concerning their experiences following a prostate cancer diagnosis. Emerging themes were identified and consensus reached. A summary of each of the themes was produced which the coders agreed conveyed the essence of the online discussion. All men who took part in the online focus group reported that prostate cancer significantly impacted their lives. Unexpectedly, some participants actually gained a positive perspective and adopted a sense of empowerment. Participants spoke about emotional responses to a diagnosis of prostate cancer, accessing help and support, the impact of incontinence, the impact of sexual changes on identity, a re-evaluation of life, changed sexual relationships, the need to find the most suitable healthcare professionals and identification of current needs to improve quality of care. These areas of disquiet suggest that the psychological impact of this disease may be quite significant over an extended time-frame. Further research needs to be undertaken to assess the degree of distress accompanying the treatment of gay and bisexual men with prostate cancer.

BackgroundEarly childhood vaccination is an essential global public health practice that saves two to three million lives each year, but many children do not receive all the recommended vaccines. To achieve and maintain appropriate coverage rates, vaccination programmes rely on people having sufficient awareness and acceptance of vaccines.Face‐to‐face information or educational interventions are widely used to help parents understand why vaccines are important; explain where, how and when to access services; and address hesitancy and concerns about vaccine safety or efficacy. Such interventions are interactive, and can be adapted to target particular populations or identified barriers.This is an update of a review originally published in 2013.ObjectivesTo assess the effects of face‐to‐face interventions for informing or educating parents about early childhood vaccination on vaccination status and parental knowledge, attitudes and intention to vaccinate.Search methodsWe searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, five other databases, and two trial registries (July and August 2017). We screened reference lists of relevant articles, and contacted authors of included studies and experts in the field. We had no language or date restrictions.Selection criteriaWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster‐RCTs evaluating the effects of face‐to‐face interventions delivered to parents or expectant parents to inform or educate them about early childhood vaccination, compared with control or with another face‐to‐face intervention. The World Health Organization recommends that children receive all early childhood vaccines, with the exception of human papillomavirus vaccine (HPV), which is delivered to adolescents.Data collection and analysisWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two authors independently reviewed all search results, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies.Main resultsIn this update, we found four new studies, for a total of ten studies. We included seven RCTs and three cluster‐RCTs involving a total of 4527 participants, although we were unable to pool the data from one cluster‐RCT. Three of the ten studies were conducted in low‐ or middle‐ income countries.All included studies compared face‐to‐face interventions with control. Most studies evaluated the effectiveness of a single intervention session delivered to individual parents. The interventions were an even mix of short (ten minutes or less) and longer sessions (15 minutes to several hours).Overall, elements of the study designs put them at moderate to high risk of bias. All studies but one were at low risk of bias for sequence generation (i.e. used a random number sequence). For allocation concealment (i.e. the person randomising participants was unaware of the study group to which participant would be allocated), three were at high risk and one was judged at unclear risk of bias. Due to the educational nature of the intervention, blinding of participants and personnel was not possible in any ...

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract