Cited by 61Cancer survivorship and careCancer-related cognitive impairment studiesProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment

Psychosocial interventions for men with prostate cancer: a C ochrane systematic review

Parahoo, Kader, McDonough, Suzanne, McCaughan, Eilis, Noyes, Jane, Semple, Cherith, Halstead, Elizabeth J., Neuberger, Molly M., Dahm, Philipp·2015·BJU International

Abstract

To evaluate the effectiveness of psychosocial interventions for men with prostate cancer in improving quality of life (QoL), self-efficacy and knowledge and in reducing distress, uncertainty and depression. We searched for trials using a range of electronic databases including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO to October 2013, together with hand searching of journals and reference lists. Randomised controlled trials were eligible if they included psychosocial interventions that explicitly used one or a combination of the following approaches: cognitive behavioural, psycho-educational, supportive and counselling. Interventions had to be delivered or facilitated by trained or lay personnel. Our outcomes were an improvement in QoL, self-efficacy and knowledge and a reduction in distress, uncertainty and depression. Pairs of review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We analysed data using standardised mean differences (SMDs), random-effects models and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). In all, 19 studies with a total of 3 204 men, with a diagnosis of prostate cancer, comparing psychosocial interventions vs usual care were included in this review. Men in the psychosocial intervention group had a small, statistically significant improvement in the physical component of general health-related QoL (GHQoL) at end of intervention (SMD 0.12, 95% CI 0.01-0.22) based on low quality evidence. There was no cl…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/bju.12989

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 32 · Cited by 61

Authors
Parahoo, K., McDonough, S., McCaughan, E., Noyes, J., Semple, C., Halstead, E. J., Neuberger, M. M., & Dahm, P.
Affiliations
  • University of Ulster (GB)
  • Institute of Nursing and Health Research University of Ulster Coleraine Co. Londonderry UK
  • Bangor University (GB)
  • South Eastern Health and Social Care Trust (GB)
  • Minneapolis VA Health Care System (US)
  • University of Minnesota (US)
Corresponding author
Parahoo, Kader
Venue
BJU International
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2015-03-17
Volume
116
Issue
2
Pages
174-183
ISSN
  • 1464-4096 (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-410X
OpenAlex
W2150289999
Cited by
61
References
32
Citations by year
2024: 5 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 2
FWCI
0.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • British Journal of Urology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Sunderland Repository (University of Sunderland) (acceptedVersion)
Funders
Health and Social Care Research and Development Office (Northern Ireland)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Cancer-related cognitive impairment studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Prostate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Keywords
psychosocial interventions, prostate cancer, quality of life, self-efficacy, cancer knowledge, distress, uncertainty, depression, cognitive behavioral therapy, psychoeducational intervention, supportive counseling, cancer-specific quality of life, men's health, psychological support for cancer patients, usual care comparison, intervention effectiveness evaluation, risk of bias in trials
MeSH terms
Humans, Male, Prospective Studies, Prostatic Neoplasms, Quality of Life, Social Support, Self Efficacy

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review