ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: The primary objective was to determine the feasibility of implementing the TrueNTH SHAReClinic as a pan-Canadian sexual health and rehabilitation intervention for patients treated for localized prostate cancer. METHODS: The feasibility study was designed to evaluate the accessibility and acceptability of the intervention. Participants from five institutions across Canada were enrolled to attend one pre-treatment and five follow-up online clinic visits over 1 year following their prostate cancer (PC) treatment. RESULTS: Sixty-five patients were enrolled in the intervention. Website analytics revealed that 71% completed the intervention in its entirety, including the educational modules, with an additional 10% completing more than half of the intervention. Five thousand eighty-three views of the educational modules were made along with 654 views of the health library items. Over 1500 messages were exchanged between participants and their sexual health coaches. At 12 months, the intervention received an overall average participant rating of 4.1 out of 5 on a single item satisfaction measure. CONCLUSION: Results support the TrueNTH SHAReClinic as highly acceptable to participants as defined by intervention adherence and engagement. The TrueNTH SHAReClinic demonstrated promise for being a feasible and potentially resource-efficient approach to effectively improving the sexual well-being of patients after PC treatment.
Subject(s)
Prostatic Neoplasms , Sexual Health , Canada , Feasibility Studies , Humans , Male , Sexual BehaviorABSTRACT
Purpose: The most prevalent intervention for localized prostate cancer (pca) is radical prostatectomy (rp), which has a 10-year relative survival rate of more than 90%. The improved survival rate has led to a focus on reducing the burden of treatment-related morbidity and improving the patient and partner survivorship experience. Post-rp sexual dysfunction (sdf) has received significant attention, given its substantial effect on patient and partner health-related quality of life. Accordingly, there is a need for sdf treatment to be a fundamental component of pca survivorship programming. Methods: Most research about the treatment of post-rp sdf involves biomedical interventions for erectile dysfunction (ed). Although findings support the effectiveness of pro-erectile agents and devices, most patients discontinue use of such aids within 1 year after their rp. Because side effects of pro-erectile treatment have proved to be inadequate in explaining the gap between efficacy and ongoing use, current research focuses on a biopsychosocial perspective of ed. Unfortunately, there is a dearth of literature describing the components of a biopsychosocial program designed for the post-rp population and their partners. Results: In this paper, we detail the development of the Prostate Cancer Rehabilitation Clinic (pcrc), which emphasizes multidisciplinary intervention teams, active participation by the partner, and a broad-spectrum medical, psychological, and interpersonal approach. Conclusions: The goal of the pcrc is to help patients and their partners achieve optimal sexual health and couple intimacy after rp, and to help design cost-effective and beneficial rehabilitation programs.
Subject(s)
Prostatectomy/adverse effects , Prostatic Neoplasms/complications , Prostatic Neoplasms/rehabilitation , Sexual Dysfunction, Physiological/etiology , Sexual Dysfunction, Physiological/rehabilitation , Erectile Dysfunction/etiology , Erectile Dysfunction/psychology , Erectile Dysfunction/rehabilitation , Female , Humans , Male , Prostatectomy/methods , Prostatic Neoplasms/psychology , Prostatic Neoplasms/surgery , Quality of Life , Research , Sexual Dysfunction, Physiological/psychology , Social SupportABSTRACT
AIMS: This clinical practice guideline was developed to provide evidence-based guidance on the frequency by which prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels should be tested in men after curative-intent treatment for prostate cancer and to define the most appropriate diagnostic testing if biochemical recurrence occurs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An electronic search using OVID was used to systematically search the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases for systematic reviews and primary literature. A systematic review and practice guideline was written, reviewed and approved by the Guideline Development Group (GDG) and Program in Evidence-Based Care Report Approval Panel. External review by three prostate experts was completed, as well as an online consultation with healthcare professionals who were intended users of the guideline. RESULTS: Three systematic reviews and seven primary studies were included in the evidence base. All identified literature reported on diagnostic imaging properties of diagnostic tests following biochemical recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: Due to a lack of empirical research, few evidenced-based recommendations could be made with respect to a follow-up schedule of PSA testing for prostate cancer survivors following curative-intent treatment, or detailing diagnostic testing upon detection of biochemical recurrence. Accordingly, the GDG focused substantial effort on critical examination of the identified evidence, existing clinical practice guidelines and on obtaining clinical expertise consensus using a modified Delphi method. Overall, the recommendations embedded in this guideline reflect the best practice to date for the efficient and effective clinical follow-up care of prostate cancer survivors.
