Objective Prostate cancer, the second most common cancer among men, typically onsets in middle or older age. Gay/bisexual men have different social networks and unique social support needs, particularly as it pertains to health care access and prostate side effects. Few studies have investigated the availability and provision of social support for gay and bisexual men with prostate cancer (GBMPCa). Methods This study used qualitative data from in-depth, semi-structured, one-on-one telephone interviews with 30 GBMPCa recruited from a national cancer support group network, Malecare. Inductive and deductive coding were used to identify themes about social support provided to GBMPCa during diagnosis and treatment. Results GBMPCa reported help from friends, family (parents, siblings), ex-partners, and paid caregivers. Men in relationships reported varying levels of reliance on their partners for support, in part due to relationship dynamics and living arrangements. Single men showed a theme of independence (“I turned down all help”, “my friends don’t want to be bothered”). After diagnosis, many men reported seeking informational and emotional support from prostate cancer support groups; most expressed wanting more support groups specifically for GBMPCa. During or after treatment, men reported receiving a range of instrumental support, largely a function of relationship status and treatment type. Conclusions GBMPCa received variable, but generally low, social support during diagnosis and treatment and from a diverse social network, including a prominence of friends and family. Clinicians should be aware of GBMPCa’s distinct patterns of social support needs and providers.

The effect of prostate cancer treatment in gay and bisexual men is an under-researched area. In 2015, we conducted in-depth telephone interviews with 19 gay and bisexual men who had undergone radical prostatectomies. Across the respondents’ five emotional themes emerged: (1) shock at the diagnosis, (2) a reactive, self-reported “depression”, (3) sex-specific situational anxiety, (4) a sense of grief, and, (5) an enduring loss of sexual confidence. Identity challenges included loss of a sense of maleness and manhood, changes in strength of sexual orientation, role-in-sex identity, and immersion into sexual sub-cultures. Relationship challenges identified included disclosing the sexual effects of treatment to partners, loss of partners, and re-negotiation of sexual exclusivity. Most to all of these effects stem from sexual changes. To mitigate these negative effects of radical prostatectomy, and to address health disparities n outcomes observed in gay and bisexual men, all these challenges need to be considered in any tailored rehabilitation program for gay and bisexual men.

No abstract

BackgroundWhile deduplication and cross-validation protocols have been recommended for large Web-based studies, protocols for survey response validation of smaller studies have not been published.ObjectiveThis paper reports the challenges of survey validation inherent in a small Web-based health survey research.MethodsThe subject population was North American, gay and bisexual, prostate cancer survivors, who represent an under-researched, hidden, difficult-to-recruit, minority-within-a-minority population. In 2015-2016, advertising on a large Web-based cancer survivor support network, using email and social media, yielded 478 completed surveys.ResultsOur manual deduplication and cross-validation protocol identified 289 survey submissions (289/478, 60.4%) as likely spam, most stemming from advertising on social media. The basic components of this deduplication and validation protocol are detailed. An unexpected challenge encountered was invalid survey responses evolving across the study period. This necessitated the static detection protocol be augmented with a dynamic one.ConclusionsFive recommendations for validation of Web-based samples, especially with smaller difficult-to-recruit populations, are detailed.