ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: To describe social support patterns of gay and bisexual men with prostate cancer (GBMPCa) and how social support is associated with prostate cancer outcomes. SAMPLE & SETTING: A cross-sectional online survey with 186 GBMPCa recruited from a national cancer support group network. METHODS & VARIABLES: Descriptive statistics of social support and linear regression of social support on general and prostate cancer-specific quality of life (QOL). Social support and health-related QOL were assessed generally and specific to prostate cancer. RESULTS: Participants primarily relied on partners or husbands, gay and bisexual friends, chosen family, and men from support groups for support. The most common types of support received were informational and emotional social support. Low general social support was significantly associated with worse prostate cancer symptom bother and general mental QOL. Wanting more social support was significantly associated with worse prostate cancer-specific and general QOL. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING: Clinicians should be aware of the different social support networks and needs of GBMPCa and refer them to relevant support groups to improve QOL.
Subject(s)
Bisexuality/psychology , Homosexuality, Male/psychology , Prostatic Neoplasms/psychology , Prostatic Neoplasms/therapy , Quality of Life/psychology , Social Support , Aged , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Surveys and QuestionnairesABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: Prostate cancer, the second most common cancer among men, typically onsets in middle or older age. Gay/bisexual men have different social networks and unique social support needs, particularly as it pertains to health care access and prostate side effects. Few studies have investigated the availability and provision of social support for gay and bisexual men with prostate cancer (GBMPCa). METHODS: This study used qualitative data from in-depth, semistructured, one-on-one telephone interviews with 30 GBMPCa recruited from a national cancer support group network, Malecare. Inductive and deductive codes were used to identify themes about social support provided to GBMPCa during diagnosis and treatment. RESULTS: GBMPCa reported help from friends, family (parents and siblings), ex-partners, and paid caregivers. Men in relationships reported varying levels of reliance on their partners for support, in part due to relationship dynamics and living arrangements. Single men showed a theme of independence ("I turned down all help," "My friends don't want to be bothered"). After diagnosis, many men reported seeking informational and emotional support from prostate cancer support groups; most expressed wanting more support groups specifically for GBMPCa. During or after treatment, men reported receiving a range of instrumental support, largely a function of relationship status and treatment type. CONCLUSIONS: GBMPCa received variable, but generally low, social support during diagnosis and treatment and from a diverse social network, including a prominence of friends and family. Clinicians should be aware of GBMPCa's distinct patterns of social support needs and providers.
Subject(s)
Bisexuality/psychology , Caregivers/psychology , Homosexuality, Male/psychology , Prostatic Neoplasms/psychology , Sexual Partners/psychology , Social Support , Aged , Humans , Life Change Events , Male , Middle Aged , Social NetworkingABSTRACT
Certain research topics - including studies of sexual behavior, substance use, and HIV risk -- are more likely to be scrutinized by the media and groups opposed to this area of research. When studying topics that others might deem controversial, it is critical that researchers anticipate potential negative media events prior to their occurrence. By developing an Emergency Public Relations Protocol at the genesis of a study, researchers can identify and plan for events that might result in higher scrutiny. For each identified risk, a good protocol details procedures to enact before, during and after a media event. This manuscript offers recommendations for developing a protocol based on both Situational Crisis Communication Theory and our experience as an HIV prevention research group who recently experienced such an event. The need to have procedures in place to monitor and address social media is highlighted.
