Cited by 23Cancer survivorship and careNursing care and researchCancer-related cognitive impairment studies

A randomized controlled trial of a self-management psychosocial intervention for men with prostate cancer and their partners: a study protocol

Open access
McCaughan, Eilis, Prue, Gillian, McSorley, Oonagh, Northouse, Laurel, Schafenacker, Ann, Parahoo, Kader·2013·Journal of Advanced Nursing

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Little is known about interventions to help men and their partners cope with the after effects of prostate cancer treatment. The lack of in-depth descriptions of the intervention content is hindering the identification of which intervention (or component of an intervention) works. AIM: To describe the development and evaluation of the content of a self-management psychosocial intervention for men with prostate cancer and their partners. DESIGN: A feasibility randomized controlled trial including structure, process, and outcome analysis. METHODS: This 9-week intervention commences on completion of treatment and consists of three group and two telephone sessions. The intervention focuses on symptom management, sexual dysfunction, uncertainty management, positive thinking and couple communication. Forty-eight couples will be assigned to either the intervention or a control group receiving usual care. Participants will be assessed at baseline, immediately postintervention and at 1 and 6 months postintervention. Outcome measures for patients and caregivers include self-efficacy, quality of life, symptom distress, uncertainty, benefits of illness, health behaviour, and measures of couple communication and support. An additional caregiver assessment will be completed by the partner. DISCUSSION: The main purpose of this feasibility study is to investigate the acceptability of the CONNECT programme to men with prostate cancer and their partners and to gain feedback from the participants and facilitators to make changes to and enhance the programme. Reasons why men do not want to participate will be collated to enhance recruitment in the future. We will also test recruitment strategies, randomization procedures, and the acceptability of the questionnaires. Ethical approval granted December 2010.

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/jan.12132

Cites

69 of 69 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Carlson L.E., Bultz B.D. (2004) Cancer distress screening: Needs, models and methods. Journal of Psychosomatic Research 55: 4403-409.
  2. Cella D.F., Tulsky D.S., Gray G., Sarafian B., Linn E., Bonomi A., Silberman M., Yellen S.B., Winicour P., Brannon J. (1993) The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) scale: development and validation of the general measure. Journal of Clinical Oncology 3: 570 -579.
  3. Cockle-Hearne J., Faithfull S. (2010) Self-management for men surviving prostate cancer: a review of behavioural and psychosocial interventions to understand what strategies can work, for whom and in what circumstances. Psycho-Oncology 19: 909-922.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
McCaughan, E., Prue, G., McSorley, O., Northouse, L., Schafenacker, A., & Parahoo, K.
Affiliations
  • Institute of Nursing and Health Research University of Ulster Newtownabbey UK
  • Queen's University Belfast (GB)
  • University of Ulster (GB)
  • University of Michigan (US)
Venue
Journal of Advanced Nursing
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2013-03-25
Volume
69
Issue
11
Pages
2572-2583
ISSN
  • 0309-2402 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2648
OpenAlex
W2136707033
Cited by
23
References
69
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 1
FWCI
0.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Advanced Nursing (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Portal (Queen's University Belfast) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Pharmacy › Nursing care and research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Cancer-related cognitive impairment studies
Keywords
prostate cancer, self-management interventions, psychosocial interventions, couples, partners of cancer patients, sexual dysfunction, symptom management, uncertainty management, positive thinking, couple communication, self-efficacy, quality of life, feasibility study, acceptability, recruitment strategies
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Feasibility Studies, Humans, Male, Prostatic Neoplasms, Self Care, Sexual Partners, Treatment Outcome, Patient Satisfaction

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