Cited by 149Cancer survivorship and careAttachment and Relationship DynamicsSexual function and dysfunction studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 54 of the 56 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Intimacy-Enhancing Psychological Intervention for Men Diagnosed with Prostate Cancer and Their Partners: A Pilot Study

Open access

Abstract

Introduction: Few couple-focused interventions have been developed to improve distress and relationship outcomes among men diagnosed with localized prostate cancer and their partners. Aims: We examined the effects of a five-session Intimacy-Enhancing Therapy (IET) vs. Usual Care (UC) on the psychological and relationship functioning of men diagnosed with localized prostate cancer and their partners. Pre-intervention levels of psychological and relationship functioning were evaluated as moderators of intervention effects. Methods: Seventy-one survivors and their partners completed a baseline survey and were subsequently randomly assigned to receive five sessions of IET or UC (no treatment). Eight weeks after the baseline assessment, a follow-up survey was administered to survivor and partner. Main Outcome Measures: Distress, well-being, relationship satisfaction, relationship intimacy, and communication were investigated as the main outcomes. Results: IET effects were largely moderated by pre-intervention psychosocial and relationship factors. Those survivors who had higher levels of cancer concerns at pretreatment had significantly reduced concerns following IET. Similar moderating effects for pre-intervention levels were reported for the effects of IET on self-disclosure, perceived partner disclosure, and perceived partner responsiveness. Among partners beginning the intervention with higher cancer-specific distress, lower marital satisfaction, lower intimacy, and poorer communication, IET improved these outcomes. Conclusions: IET had a marginally significant main effect upon survivor well-being but was effective among couples with fewer personal and relationship resources. Subsequent research is needed to replicate these findings with a larger sample and a longer follow-up.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1743-6109.2010.02163.x

Cites

54 of 54 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 56 references

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Spanier, 1983, The dyadic adjustment scale, 155

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–149 of 149

Metadata

Authors
Manne, S. L., Kissane, D. W., Nelson, C. J., Mulhall, J. P., Winkel, G., & Zaider, T.
Affiliations
  • Rutgers Cancer Institute (US)
  • Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (US)
  • City University of New York (US)
Corresponding author
Manne, Sharon L.
Venue
The Journal of Sexual Medicine
Published
2011-04-01
Volume
8
Issue
4
Pages
1197-1209
ISSN
  • 1743-6095 (ISSN-L)
  • 1743-6109
OpenAlex
W2127644490
Cited by
149
References
56
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 17 · 2014: 17 · 2013: 14 · 2012: 10
FWCI
6.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Journal of Sexual Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • NCI (K05 CA109008)
  • Fox Chase Cancer Center (P30 CA006927)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Attachment and Relationship Dynamics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Sexual function and dysfunction studies
Keywords
prostate cancer, couple-based interventions, cancer survivors, partners of cancer patients, relationship satisfaction, relationship intimacy, marital communication, cancer-related distress, self-disclosure, partner responsiveness, psychological well-being, localized prostate cancer
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Female, Health Surveys, Humans, Male, Mental Health, Middle Aged, Models, Psychological, Personal Satisfaction, Pilot Projects, Prostatic Neoplasms, Psychometrics, Psychotherapy, Sexual Partners, Statistics as Topic, Stress, Psychological, United States, Survivors, Spouses, Men's Health

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