Couple distress after localised prostate cancer — YRD

Couple distress after localised prostate cancer (#117)

S K Chambers 1 2 3 , L Schover 4 , Lisa Nielsen 1 , K Halford 5 , S Clutton 1 , RA Gardiner 6 , J Dunn 2 7 8 , S Occhipinti 1 9
  1. Cancer Council Queensland, Spring Hill, Qld, Australia
  2. Griffith Health Institute, Griffith University, Brisbane
  3. Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia, Sydney
  4. Department of Behavioral Science, University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
  5. School of Psychology, University of Queensland, Brisbane
  6. Department of Surgery, University of Queensland, Brisbane
  7. School of Public Health, Griffith University, Brisbane
  8. School of Social Science, University of Queensland, Brisbane
  9. School of Applied Psychology, Griffith University, Brisbane

Introduction/Objective: The experience of a diagnosis of prostate cancer is distressing for both men and their partners. However, it is proposed that the extent of distress in couples coping with prostate cancer can be influenced by a number of dyadic variables. This presentation describes the prevalence of psychological distress in men with prostate cancer and their female partners; and the impact of socio-demographic and psychosocial variables on adjustment outcomes.

Methods: A cross-sectional survey of 189 (47% response) prostate cancer patients who were scheduled for or had undergone surgery for localised prostate cancer and their partners assessed socio-demographic and clinical variables; masculine self-esteem and social intimacy; anxiety and depression; cancer-specific distress; and quality of life.

Results: Overall patients and partners reported low distress; however, female partners were more anxious with 36% reporting mild to severe anxiety, compared to 24% of patients. For men, masculine self-esteem and time since diagnosis were most strongly related to mental health status; urinary bother most influenced physical quality of life. For female partners, the man’s psychological distress and his sexual bother were most strongly related to her mental health status; higher social intimacy was most strongly associated with physical quality of life.

Conclusions: Couple distress after prostate cancer is influenced by a number of interacting variables; however patterns for patients and partners differ. For men masculine self-esteem may be most important, whereas for women her partners’ level of distress may matter most. Further research is needed to better understand these interactions, and to identify potential targets for therapy.