The effect of dyadic intervention on self‐efficacy, social support, and depression for men with prostate cancer

Abstract

Urinary and sexual dysfunctions are side effects of radical prostatectomy (RP) for prostate cancer (PC) that contribute to depression. Despite the effectiveness of support groups at reducing depression in cancer patients, men typically do not participate in them. The purpose of this pilot study was to test the effects of a dyadic intervention (one-to-one support) on social support (Modified Inventory of Socially Supportive Behaviors), self-efficacy (Stanford Inventory of Cancer Patient Adjustment), and depression (Geriatric Depression Scale). Subjects were randomized to group. Controls (N=15; Mage=59.7) received usual care. Experimentals were paired with long-term survivors (LTS) who had RP and who had treatment side effects in common. Experimentals (N=15; Mage=57.5) met with a LTS 8 times in 8 weeks to discuss concerns associated with survivorship. No significant differences were detected on social support, but after 4 weeks, significant differences were present on depression between controls and experimentals, however these differences were not seen at 8 weeks. After 8 weeks, there were also significant differences on self-efficacy between controls and experimentals. Weekly anecdotal data supported the feasibility and acceptance of the intervention that was a low cost strategy effective at reducing depression and increasing self-efficacy in men treated by RP. Future research directions and clinical application is presented.

The effectiveness of treatment for depression/depressive symptoms in adults with cancer: a systematic review

“…Studies were conducted in Europe (n ¼ 5) (Burton et al, 1995;Marchioro et al, 1996;McArdle et al, 1996;Moynihan et al, 1998;Kuijer et al, 2004), the United States of America (n ¼ 8) (Evans and Connis, 1995;Sandgren et al, 2000;Antoni et al, 2001;Classen et al, 2001;Rawl et al, 2002;Winzelberg et al, 2003;Given et al, 2004;Weber et al, 2004) Canada (n ¼ 1) (Goodwin et al, 2001), Australia (n ¼ 3) (Edelman et al, 1999;McLachlan et al, 2001;Petersen and Quinlivan, 2002) and Japan (n ¼ 1) (Fukui et al, 2000). The mean sample size in the intervention and control group was 61 patients (range 15 -296) and 52 patients (range 15 -154), respectively.…”

“…The proportion of female participants ranged from between 41 to 100%. Eight studies were multicentre trials (McArdle et al, 1996;Classen et al, 2001;Goodwin et al, 2001;McLachlan et al, 2001;Petersen and Quinlivan, 2002;Rawl et al, 2002;Given et al, 2004;Weber et al, 2004) and 10 were single-centre trials (Burton et al, 1995;Evans and Connis, 1995;Marchioro et al, 1996;Moynihan et al, 1998;Edelman et al, 1999;Fukui et al, 2000;Sandgren et al, 2000;Antoni et al, 2001;Winzelberg et al, 2003;Kuijer et al, 2004).…”

“…All outcome measures were clearly described and reliable. Only two (11%) studies avoided some psychotherapeutic cointerventions by trial design (Goodwin 2001;Weber et al, 2004). None of the trials reported avoiding or monitoring the use of pharmacological or CAM cointerventions.…”

Assessing self‐efficacy for coping with cancer: development and psychometric analysis of the brief version of the Cancer Behavior Inventory (CBI‐B)

“…Studies have suggested that those cancer patients who feel more efficacious in their ability to cope are better adjusted (4,20), enjoy a higher quality of life (21), may live longer (22), and experience less depression (23) than those who feel less confident in their ability to cope.…”

Preparedness for side effects and bother in symptomatic men after radical prostatectomy in a prospective, non-randomized trial, LAPPRO

“…comm.). Several randomized controlled trials [17][18][19][20][21][22] investigated the effect of psychosocial intervention after treatment for prostate cancer on urinary bother [17][18][19][20][21][22], sexual bother [17][18][19]22], or sexual satisfaction [20,21,23]. Psychosocial intervention was associated with less sexual bother or higher sexual satisfaction in all but one study [17,18,[20][21][22][23].…”