Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Supportive Care in Cancer Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The most difficult survivorship issue reported by prostate cancer patients is the dramatic changes in their sexual relationships. The purpose of this study was to investigate the feasibility of a workshop designed to improve patients' and partners' sexual relationships.

Method

Participants attended one 3.5-h workshop. A total of three separate workshops were held over a 12-month period. Patients and partners complete the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (SFQ) prior, 2 months following, and if couples registered early enough, 2 months before the workshop. Change scores were calculated.

Results

Over the three workshops, 77 participants attended. All targets were met for feasibility and acceptability. Patients and partners both demonstrated significant gains on the medical impact subscale of the SFQ, and partners also demonstrated significant gains in sexual interest, problems, and total sexual function.

Conclusions

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Resnick MJ, Koyama T, Fan KH, Albertsen PC, Goodman M, Hamilton AS et al (2013) Long-term functional outcomes after treatment for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 368:436–445. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1209978

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Schover LR, Fouladi RT, Warneke CL, Neese L, Klein EA, Zippe C et al (2002) Defining sexual outcomes after treatment for localized prostate carcinoma. Cancer 95:1773–1785. doi:10.1002/cncr.10848

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Parker WR, Wang R, He C, Wood DP Jr (2011) Five year expanded prostate cancer index composite-based quality of life outcomes after prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer. BJU Int 107:585–590. doi:10.1111/j.1464-410X.2010.09579.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Burnett AL, Aus G, Canby-Hagino ED, Cookson MS, D'Amico AV, Dmochowski RR et al (2007) Erectile function outcome reporting after clinically localized prostate cancer treatment. J Urol 178:597–601. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2007.03.140

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Jakobsson L, Hallberg IR, Loven L (2000) Experiences of micturition problems, indwelling catheter treatment and sexual life consequences in men with prostate cancer. J Adv Nurs 31:59–67

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Badr H, Taylor CL (2009) Sexual dysfunction and spousal communication in couples coping with prostate cancer. Psychooncology 18:735–746. doi:10.1002/pon.1449

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Butler L, Downe-Wamboldt B, Marsh S, Bell D, Jarvi K (2001) Quality of life post radical prostatectomy: a male perspective. Urol Nurs 21:283–288

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Boehmer U, Babayan RK (2004) Facing erectile dysfunction due to prostate cancer treatment: perspectives of men and their partners. Cancer Investig 22:840–848

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Clark JA, Talcott JA (2001) Symptom indexes to assess outcomes of treatment for early prostate cancer. Med Care 39:1118–1130

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Kunkel EJ, Bakker JR, Myers RE, Oyesanmi O, Gomella LG (2000) Biopsychosocial aspects of prostate cancer. Psychosomatics 4:85–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Hagedoorn M, Sanderman R, Bolks HN, Tuinstra J, Coyne JC (2008) Distress in couples coping with cancer: a meta-analysis and critical review of role and gender effects. Psychol Bull 134:1–30. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.134.1.1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Kim Y, Kashy DA, Wllisch DK, Spillers RL, Kaw CK, Smith TG (2008) Quality of life of couples dealing with cancer: dyadic adjustment and individual adjustment among breast and prostate cancer survivors and their spousal caregivers. Ann Behav Med 35:230–238. doi:10.1007/212160-008-9026-y

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Lepore SJ, Wolf RL, Basch CE, Godfrey M, McGinty E, Shmukler C et al (2012) Informed decision making about prostate cancer testing in predominantly immigrant black men: a randomized controlled trial. Ann Behav Med 44:320–330. doi:10.1007/s12160-012-9392-3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Molton IR, Siegel SD, Penedo FJ, Dahn JR, Kinsinger D, Traeger LN et al (2008) Promoting recovery of sexual functioning after radical prostatectomy with group-based stress management: the role of interpersonal sensitivity. J Psychosom Res 64:527–536. doi:10.1016/j.jpsychores.2008.01.004

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Weber BA, Roberts BL, Resnick M, Deimling G, Zauszniewski HA, Musil C et al (2003) The effects of dyadic intervention on self-efficacy, social support, and depression for men with prostate cancer. Psychooncology 13:47–60. doi:10.1002/pon.718

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Manne SL, Kissane DW, Nelson CJ, Mulhall JP, Winkel G, Zaider T (2011) Intimacy-enhancing psychological intervention for men diagnosed with prostate cancer and their partners: a pilot study. J Sex Med 8:1197–1209. doi:10.1111/j.1743-6109.2010.02163.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Canada AL, Neese LE, Sui D, Schover LR (2005) Pilot intervention to enhance sexual rehabilitation for couples after treatment for localized prostate carcinoma. Cancer 104:2689–2700. doi:10.1002/cncr.21537

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Nelson CJ, Kenowitz J (2013) Communication and intimacy-enhancing interventions for men diagnosed with prostate cancer and their partners. J Sex Med Suppl 1:127–132. doi:10.1111/jsm.12049

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Collins AL, Love AW, Bloch S, Street AF, Buchesne GM, Dunai J et al (2011) Cognitive existential couple therapy for newly diagnosed prostate cancer patients and their partners: a descriptive pilot study. Psychooncology 22:465–469. doi:10.1002/pon.2085

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Schover LR, Canada AL, Yuan Y, Sui D, Neese L, Jenkins R et al (2011) A randomized trial of internet-based versus traditional sexual counseling for couples after localized prostate cancer treatment. Cancer 118:500–509. doi:10.1002/cncr.26308

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Giesler RB, Given B, Given CW, Rawl S, Monahan P, Burns D et al (2005) Improving the quality of life of patients with prostate carcinoma: a randomized trial testing the efficacy of a nurse-driven intervention. Cancer 104(4):752–762. doi:10.1002/cncr.21231

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Arrington MI (2010) Theorizing about social support and health communication in a prostate cancer support group. J Psychosoc Oncol 28:260–268. doi:10.1080/07347331003678337

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Heneghan C, Perera R, Ward AA, Fitzmaurice D, Meats E, Glasziou P (2007) Assessing differential attrition in clinical trials: self-monitoring of oral anticoagulation and type II diabetes. BMC Med Res Methodol 7:18–30. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-7-18

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Brotto LA, Erskine Y, Carey M, Ehlen T, Finlayson S, Heywood M et al (2012) A brief mindfulness-based cognitive behavioral intervention improves sexual functioning versus wait-list control in women treated for gynecologic cancer. Gynecol Oncol 125:320–325. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2012.01.035

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Chambers SK, Ferguson M, Gardiner RA, Aitken J, Occhipinti S (2012) Intervening to improve psychological outcomes for men with prostate cancer. Psychooncology 22:1025–1034. doi:10.1002/pon.3095

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Maliski SL, Clerkin B, Litwin MS (2004) Describing a nurse case manager intervention to empower low-income men with prostate cancer. Oncol Nurs Forum 31:57–64. doi:10.1188/04.ONF.57-64

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Jeffrey D, Fisher WA (2002) The information-motivation-behavioral skills model. In: DiClemte RJ, Kegler MC (eds) Emerging theories in health promotion practice and research: strategies for improving public health. Wiley, New York, pp 40–68

    Google Scholar 

  28. Beck AM, Robinson JW, Carlson LE (2013) Sexual values as the key to maintaining satisfying sex after prostate cancer treatment: the Physical Pleasure-Relational Intimacy Model of Sexual Motivation (PRISM). Arch Sex Behav (in press)

  29. Lockyer JM, Fidler H, Ward R, Basson RJ, Elliot S, Toews J (2001) Commitment to change statements: a way of understanding how participants use information and skills taught in an educational session. JCEHP 21:82–89

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Naik AD, Palmer N, Petersen NJ, Street RL Jr, Rao R, Suarez-Almazor M et al (2011) Comparative effectiveness of goal setting in diabetes mellitus group clinics: randomized clinical trial. Arch Intern Med 171:453–459. doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2011.70

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Syrjala KL, Schroeder TC, Abrams JR, Atkins TZ, Brown WS, Sanders JE et al (2000) Sexual function measurement and outcomes in cancer survivors and matched controls. J Sex Res 37:213–225. doi:10.1080/00224490009552042

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Hsieh HF, Shannon SE (2005) Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res 15:1277–1288. doi:10.1177/1049732305276687

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Garos S, Kluck A, Aronoff D (2007) Prostate cancer patients and their partners: differences in satisfaction indices and psychological variables. J Sex Med 4:1394–1403. doi:10.1111/j.1743-6109.2007.00545.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Special thanks are given to Dr. Jay Lee and Louise Thompson for the assistance in the advertisement, development, and presentation of the workshop. We also thank the Prostate Cancer Institute for providing the funding for the workshop. Finally, we would like to acknowledge the courageous dedication of the couples who participated in this study.

Conflict of interest

All authors declare no conflicts of interests and that they have full control of all primary data and agree to allow the journal to review their data if requested.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada

    Lauren M. Walker & John W. Robinson

  2. Department of Psychology, University of Regina, 3737 Wascana Parkway - AH 345, Regina, SK, S4S 0A2, Canada

    Amy J. D. Hampton

  3. Department of Psychosocial Resources, Tom Baker Cancer Centre, Calgary, AB, Canada

    Lauren M. Walker, Andrea Beck & John W. Robinson

  4. Faculty of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada

    John W. Robinson

Authors
  1. Amy J. D. Hampton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lauren M. Walker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Andrea Beck
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. John W. Robinson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Amy J. D. Hampton.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hampton, A.J.D., Walker, L.M., Beck, A. et al. A brief couples' workshop for improving sexual experiences after prostate cancer treatment: a feasibility study. Support Care Cancer 21, 3403–3409 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-013-1922-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-013-1922-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation