A brief couples' workshop for improving sexual experiences after prostate cancer treatment: a feasibility study

Abstract

The results suggest that attending one 3.5-h workshop that is offered every 4 months is feasible and acceptable to patients and their partners. Furthermore, the SFQ proves to be a sensitive assessment instrument of sexual function for patients and their partners.

A systematic review of characteristics of couple‐based intervention studies addressing sexuality following cancer

“…The residual studies involved patients with breast cancer ( N = 2) (Baucom et al., ; Decker, Pais, Miller, Goulet, & Fifea, ), colorectal cancer ( N = 1) (Reese et al., ) and advanced gastrointestinal cancer ( N = 1) (Porter et al., ). Although four studies welcomed same‐sex couples (Hampton, Walker, Beck, & Robinson, ; Manne et al., ; Robertson et al., ; Walker, Hampton, Wassersug, Thomas, & Robinson, ), they were only included in two instances (Manne et al., ; Robertson et al., ). In contrast, three studies excluded same‐sex couples (Baucom et al., ; Chambers et al., ; Schover et al., ).…”

“…Seven of those were pilot RCTs (Baucom et al., ; Manne et al., ; Porter et al., ; Reese et al., ; Robertson et al., ; Schover et al., ; Walker et al., ) and one study was a quasi‐experimental pilot (Wittmann et al., ). In the remaining six studies, two were RCTs (Chambers et al., ; Lyons, Winters‐Stone, Bennett, & Beer, ), two were quasi‐experimental (Decker et al., ; Hampton et al., ) and two had a pre–post design (Song et al., ; Walker, King, Kwasny, & Robinson, ). Quality appraisal showed highly diverse results; see S2.…”

“…The most common weaknesses in eight studies were related to randomization, blinding, concealment and insufficient description of outcomes in those couples who withdrew from the intervention (Baucom et al. ; Chambers et al., ; Decker et al., ; Hampton et al., ; Lyons et al., ; Manne et al., ; Porter et al., ; Reese et al., ; Robertson et al., ; Schover et al., ; Walker et al., ). However, the overall strengths across all studies were suitable ways of measuring outcomes, appropriate statistical analysis and providing data on partners.…”

Heterosexual couples and prostate cancer support groups: a gender relations analysis

“…The findings also shed important light on how traditional heterosexual gender relations can garner supportive care, both in and outside spousal relationships at PCSGs. In this regard, while PCa couples' research and interventions have focused on couple's coping and distress [37,38] as well as sexual rehabilitation [39], less attention has been paid to how gender relations influence men's decision making and help-seeking, and their uptake of services.…”

Couple Resilience

“…We have started to use a values clarifi cation exercise based on the PRISM model in our clinical work with couples experiencing sexual dysfunction subsequent to prostate cancer treatment with promising results (Hampton, Walker, Beck, & Robinson, 2013 ). The PRISM model appears to have an appeal for couples by helping them to clarify their own sexual values and better understand those of their partner.…”