Badger, T.A., Segrin, C., Figueredo, A.J., Harrington, J., Sheppard, K., Passalacqua, S., . . . Bishop, M. (2011). Psychosocial interventions to improve quality of life in prostate cancer survivors and their intimate or family partners. Quality of Life Research, 20, 833–844.

DOI Link

Study Purpose

To test the effectiveness of two telephone-delivered psychosocial interventions for maintaining and improving quality of life

Intervention Characteristics/Basic Study Process

The first intervention was by-telephone interpersonal counseling (TIP-C) delivered weekly for eight weeks to prostate cancer survivors and every other week for eight weeks to partners. The second intervention involved eight weekly health education attention condition (HEAC) sessions delivered by telephone.

Sample Characteristics

  • The sample included 71 men (survivors) and 70 partners.  
  • Mean age of survivors was 66.99 years and mean age of partners was 61.13 years.
  • Of the survivors, 100% were male. Of the partners, 5.7% were male and 92.9% were female.
  • All survivors had been diagnosed with prostate cancer.

Setting

  • Single site
  • Home setting

Phase of Care and Clinical Applications

  • Phase of care: long-term follow-up
  • Clinical applications: late effects and survivorship, eldercare

Study Design

Repeated-measures experimental design

Measurement Instruments/Methods

  • Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale   
  • Positive and Negative Affect Schedule
  • UCLA Prostate Cancer Index
  • Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory
  • Social Well-Being Scale
  • Perceived Social Support from Family Scale
  • Spiritual Well-Being subscale of Quality of Life Instrument–breast cancer version

Results

Improvements in depression, negative affect, stress, fatigue, and spiritual well-being were significantly greater for survivors receiving the HEAC intervention than for those receiving the TIP-C intervention.Compared to partners in the TIP-C intervention, partners in the HEAC group showed significantly greater improvements in depression, fatigue, perceived social support from family members, social well-being, and spiritual well-being.

Conclusions

Both interventions in this study were effective in improving multiple dimensions of quality of life for men with prostate cancer and their partners.

Limitations

  • The study had a small sample size (fewer than 100 participants).
  • Length of time since diagnosis was highly varied in the sample and needs can be expected to differ based on this.
  • Predominantly Caucasian sample
  • Baseline QOL was high.

Nursing Implications

Both interventions were effective, but additional research is needed. Health education may be just as effective or more effective in helping patients and caregivers than individualized counseling.