Couple-focused interventions for men with localized prostate cancer and their spouses

A randomized clinical trial

Sharon Manne, Deborah A. Kashy, Talia Zaider, David Kissane, David Lee, Isaac Kim, Carolyn Heckman, Frank J. Penedo, Evangelynn Murphy, Shannon Myers Virtue

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Objectives: Few couple-focused interventions have improved psychological and relationship functioning among men diagnosed with localized prostate cancer and their spouses. This study compared the impact of intimacy-enhancing therapy (IET), a general health and wellness intervention (GHW), and usual care (UC) on the psychological and relationship functioning of localized prostate cancer patients and their partners. Relationship length, relationship satisfaction, and patient masculinity were evaluated as moderators. Design: This study was a randomized clinical trial with three study arms and four assessment time points. Methods: A total of 237 patients and partners were randomly assigned to receive IET, GHW, or UC. Participants completed measures of psychological functioning and relationship satisfaction at baseline, 5 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months post-baseline. Primary outcomes were psychological adjustment, depression, cancer-specific distress, cancer concerns, and relationship satisfaction. Results: Spouses in IET showed greater increases in relationship satisfaction than spouses in GHW and UC between the baseline and 5-week follow-up. Among patients in longer relationships, significant increases in psychological adjustment were found in both treatments compared to UC. Among spouses in longer relationships, psychological adjustment increased in both IET and UC but declined in GHW. Conclusions: Intimacy-enhancing therapy did not show an impact on general or cancer-specific distress, but did show an early impact on relationship satisfaction among spouses. IET was superior to UC for patients in longer relationships. It will be important for researchers to understand which couple-focused interventions benefits both patients and spouses and to identify characteristics of patients, partners, and couples who may not benefit from psychological treatments. Statement of contribution What is already known on this subject? Men diagnosed with localized prostate cancer report lower health-related quality of life and both patients and spouses report elevated distress. Relationship communication plays a role in couples’ psychological adaptation to prostate cancer. Couple-focused interventions have illustrated an impact on relationship communication. There are no studies comparing different couple-focused interventions. What does this study add? Intimacy-enhancing therapy was not superior to no treatment or a comparison treatment for the broad range of psychological and relationship outcomes. Intimacy-enhancing therapy was superior to no treatment for patients in longer-term relationship. The general health and wellness intervention was not beneficial for men in shorter relationships and for men who did not endorse traditional masculine norms.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)396-418
Number of pages23
JournalBritish journal of health psychology
Volume24
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - May 1 2019

Fingerprint

Spouses
Prostatic Neoplasms
Randomized Controlled Trials
Psychology
Therapeutics
Health
Communication
Masculinity
Neoplasms
Psychological Adaptation
Patient Satisfaction
Patient Care
Quality of Life
Research Personnel
Depression

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Applied Psychology

Keywords

  • couples’ therapy
  • general health and wellness intervention
  • intimacy-enhancing therapy
  • prostate cancer
  • psychological intervention

Cite this

Manne, Sharon ; Kashy, Deborah A. ; Zaider, Talia ; Kissane, David ; Lee, David ; Kim, Isaac ; Heckman, Carolyn ; Penedo, Frank J. ; Murphy, Evangelynn ; Virtue, Shannon Myers. / Couple-focused interventions for men with localized prostate cancer and their spouses : A randomized clinical trial. In: British journal of health psychology. 2019 ; Vol. 24, No. 2. pp. 396-418.
@article{cf520b9ad68f4563b802d8599accb287,
title = "Couple-focused interventions for men with localized prostate cancer and their spouses: A randomized clinical trial",
abstract = "Objectives: Few couple-focused interventions have improved psychological and relationship functioning among men diagnosed with localized prostate cancer and their spouses. This study compared the impact of intimacy-enhancing therapy (IET), a general health and wellness intervention (GHW), and usual care (UC) on the psychological and relationship functioning of localized prostate cancer patients and their partners. Relationship length, relationship satisfaction, and patient masculinity were evaluated as moderators. Design: This study was a randomized clinical trial with three study arms and four assessment time points. Methods: A total of 237 patients and partners were randomly assigned to receive IET, GHW, or UC. Participants completed measures of psychological functioning and relationship satisfaction at baseline, 5 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months post-baseline. Primary outcomes were psychological adjustment, depression, cancer-specific distress, cancer concerns, and relationship satisfaction. Results: Spouses in IET showed greater increases in relationship satisfaction than spouses in GHW and UC between the baseline and 5-week follow-up. Among patients in longer relationships, significant increases in psychological adjustment were found in both treatments compared to UC. Among spouses in longer relationships, psychological adjustment increased in both IET and UC but declined in GHW. Conclusions: Intimacy-enhancing therapy did not show an impact on general or cancer-specific distress, but did show an early impact on relationship satisfaction among spouses. IET was superior to UC for patients in longer relationships. It will be important for researchers to understand which couple-focused interventions benefits both patients and spouses and to identify characteristics of patients, partners, and couples who may not benefit from psychological treatments. Statement of contribution What is already known on this subject? Men diagnosed with localized prostate cancer report lower health-related quality of life and both patients and spouses report elevated distress. Relationship communication plays a role in couples’ psychological adaptation to prostate cancer. Couple-focused interventions have illustrated an impact on relationship communication. There are no studies comparing different couple-focused interventions. What does this study add? Intimacy-enhancing therapy was not superior to no treatment or a comparison treatment for the broad range of psychological and relationship outcomes. Intimacy-enhancing therapy was superior to no treatment for patients in longer-term relationship. The general health and wellness intervention was not beneficial for men in shorter relationships and for men who did not endorse traditional masculine norms.",
keywords = "couples’ therapy, general health and wellness intervention, intimacy-enhancing therapy, prostate cancer, psychological intervention",
author = "Sharon Manne and Kashy, {Deborah A.} and Talia Zaider and David Kissane and David Lee and Isaac Kim and Carolyn Heckman and Penedo, {Frank J.} and Evangelynn Murphy and Virtue, {Shannon Myers}",
year = "2019",
month = "5",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1111/bjhp.12359",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "24",
pages = "396--418",
journal = "British Journal of Health Psychology",
issn = "1359-107X",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "2",

}

Couple-focused interventions for men with localized prostate cancer and their spouses : A randomized clinical trial. / Manne, Sharon; Kashy, Deborah A.; Zaider, Talia; Kissane, David; Lee, David; Kim, Isaac; Heckman, Carolyn; Penedo, Frank J.; Murphy, Evangelynn; Virtue, Shannon Myers.

In: British journal of health psychology, Vol. 24, No. 2, 01.05.2019, p. 396-418.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Couple-focused interventions for men with localized prostate cancer and their spouses

T2 - A randomized clinical trial

AU - Manne, Sharon

AU - Kashy, Deborah A.

AU - Zaider, Talia

AU - Kissane, David

AU - Lee, David

AU - Kim, Isaac

AU - Heckman, Carolyn

AU - Penedo, Frank J.

AU - Murphy, Evangelynn

AU - Virtue, Shannon Myers

PY - 2019/5/1

Y1 - 2019/5/1

N2 - Objectives: Few couple-focused interventions have improved psychological and relationship functioning among men diagnosed with localized prostate cancer and their spouses. This study compared the impact of intimacy-enhancing therapy (IET), a general health and wellness intervention (GHW), and usual care (UC) on the psychological and relationship functioning of localized prostate cancer patients and their partners. Relationship length, relationship satisfaction, and patient masculinity were evaluated as moderators. Design: This study was a randomized clinical trial with three study arms and four assessment time points. Methods: A total of 237 patients and partners were randomly assigned to receive IET, GHW, or UC. Participants completed measures of psychological functioning and relationship satisfaction at baseline, 5 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months post-baseline. Primary outcomes were psychological adjustment, depression, cancer-specific distress, cancer concerns, and relationship satisfaction. Results: Spouses in IET showed greater increases in relationship satisfaction than spouses in GHW and UC between the baseline and 5-week follow-up. Among patients in longer relationships, significant increases in psychological adjustment were found in both treatments compared to UC. Among spouses in longer relationships, psychological adjustment increased in both IET and UC but declined in GHW. Conclusions: Intimacy-enhancing therapy did not show an impact on general or cancer-specific distress, but did show an early impact on relationship satisfaction among spouses. IET was superior to UC for patients in longer relationships. It will be important for researchers to understand which couple-focused interventions benefits both patients and spouses and to identify characteristics of patients, partners, and couples who may not benefit from psychological treatments. Statement of contribution What is already known on this subject? Men diagnosed with localized prostate cancer report lower health-related quality of life and both patients and spouses report elevated distress. Relationship communication plays a role in couples’ psychological adaptation to prostate cancer. Couple-focused interventions have illustrated an impact on relationship communication. There are no studies comparing different couple-focused interventions. What does this study add? Intimacy-enhancing therapy was not superior to no treatment or a comparison treatment for the broad range of psychological and relationship outcomes. Intimacy-enhancing therapy was superior to no treatment for patients in longer-term relationship. The general health and wellness intervention was not beneficial for men in shorter relationships and for men who did not endorse traditional masculine norms.

AB - Objectives: Few couple-focused interventions have improved psychological and relationship functioning among men diagnosed with localized prostate cancer and their spouses. This study compared the impact of intimacy-enhancing therapy (IET), a general health and wellness intervention (GHW), and usual care (UC) on the psychological and relationship functioning of localized prostate cancer patients and their partners. Relationship length, relationship satisfaction, and patient masculinity were evaluated as moderators. Design: This study was a randomized clinical trial with three study arms and four assessment time points. Methods: A total of 237 patients and partners were randomly assigned to receive IET, GHW, or UC. Participants completed measures of psychological functioning and relationship satisfaction at baseline, 5 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months post-baseline. Primary outcomes were psychological adjustment, depression, cancer-specific distress, cancer concerns, and relationship satisfaction. Results: Spouses in IET showed greater increases in relationship satisfaction than spouses in GHW and UC between the baseline and 5-week follow-up. Among patients in longer relationships, significant increases in psychological adjustment were found in both treatments compared to UC. Among spouses in longer relationships, psychological adjustment increased in both IET and UC but declined in GHW. Conclusions: Intimacy-enhancing therapy did not show an impact on general or cancer-specific distress, but did show an early impact on relationship satisfaction among spouses. IET was superior to UC for patients in longer relationships. It will be important for researchers to understand which couple-focused interventions benefits both patients and spouses and to identify characteristics of patients, partners, and couples who may not benefit from psychological treatments. Statement of contribution What is already known on this subject? Men diagnosed with localized prostate cancer report lower health-related quality of life and both patients and spouses report elevated distress. Relationship communication plays a role in couples’ psychological adaptation to prostate cancer. Couple-focused interventions have illustrated an impact on relationship communication. There are no studies comparing different couple-focused interventions. What does this study add? Intimacy-enhancing therapy was not superior to no treatment or a comparison treatment for the broad range of psychological and relationship outcomes. Intimacy-enhancing therapy was superior to no treatment for patients in longer-term relationship. The general health and wellness intervention was not beneficial for men in shorter relationships and for men who did not endorse traditional masculine norms.

KW - couples’ therapy

KW - general health and wellness intervention

KW - intimacy-enhancing therapy

KW - prostate cancer

KW - psychological intervention

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85062767277&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85062767277&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/bjhp.12359

DO - 10.1111/bjhp.12359

M3 - Article

VL - 24

SP - 396

EP - 418

JO - British Journal of Health Psychology

JF - British Journal of Health Psychology

SN - 1359-107X

IS - 2

ER -