Effects of a Brief E-Learning Resource on Sexual Attitudes and Beliefs of Healthcare Professionals Working in Prostate Cancer Care: A Pilot Study.

Sexual issues and treatment side effects are not routinely discussed with men receiving treatment for prostate cancer, and support to address these concerns is not consistent across settings. This study evaluates a brief e-learning resource designed to improve sexual wellbeing support and examine its effects on healthcare professionals' sexual attitudes and beliefs. Healthcare professionals (n = 44) completed an online questionnaire at baseline which included a modified 12-item sexual attitudes and beliefs survey (SABS). Follow-up questionnaires were completed immediately after the e-learning and at 4 weeks. Data were analysed using one-way, repeat measures ANOVAs to assess change in attitudes and beliefs over time. Significant improvements were observed at follow-up for a number of survey statements including 'knowledge and understanding', 'confidence in discussing sexual wellbeing' and the extent to which participants felt 'equipped with the language to initiate conversations'. The resource was seen as concise, relevant to practice and as providing useful information on potential side effects of treatment. In brief, e-learning has potential to address barriers to sexual wellbeing communication and promote delivery of support for prostate cancer survivors. Practical methods and resources should be included with these interventions to support implementation of learning and long-term changes in clinical behaviour.

Efficacy, Use, and Acceptability of a Web-Based Self-management Intervention Designed to Maximize Sexual Well-being in Men Living With Prostate Cancer: Single-Arm Experimental Study.

BACKGROUND: Sexual dysfunction is a frequent side effect associated with different prostate cancer treatment approaches. It can have a substantial impact on men and their partners and is associated with increased psychological morbidity. Despite this, sexual concerns are often not adequately addressed in routine practice. Evidence-based web-based interventions have the potential to provide ongoing information and sexual well-being support throughout all stages of care. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to examine the efficacy of a web-based self-management intervention designed to maximize sexual well-being in men living with prostate cancer and explore user perspectives on usability and acceptability. METHODS: We used a single-arm study design, and participants were provided with access to the 5-step intervention for a period of 3 months. The intervention content was tailored based on responses to brief screening questions on treatment type, relationship status, and sexual orientation. Efficacy was assessed by using two-tailed, paired sample t tests for comparing the mean differences between pre- and postintervention measurements for exploring the participants' self-reported knowledge and understanding, sexual satisfaction, and comfort in discussing sexual issues. Usability and acceptability were determined based on the program use data and a postintervention survey for exploring perceived usefulness. RESULTS: A total of 109 participants were recruited for this study. Significant postintervention improvements at follow-up were observed in the total scores (out of 20) from the survey (mean 12.23/20 points, SD 2.46 vs mean 13.62/20, SD 2.31; t88=9.570; P=.001) as well as in individual item scores on the extent to which the participants agreed that they had sufficient information to manage the impact that prostate cancer had on their sex life (mean 2.31/4 points, SD 0.86 vs mean 2.57/4, SD 0.85; t88=3.660; P=.001) and had the potential to have a satisfying sex life following treatment (mean 2.38/4 points, SD 0.79 vs mean 3.17/4, SD 0.78; t88=7.643; P=.001). The median number of intervention sessions was 3 (range 1-11), and intervention sessions had a median duration of 22 minutes (range 8-77). Acceptable usability scores were reported, with the highest result observed for the question on the extent to which the intervention provided relevant information. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides evidence on the efficacy of a tailored web-based intervention for maximizing sexual well-being in men living with prostate cancer. The results indicate that the intervention may improve one's self-perceived knowledge and understanding of how to manage sexual issues and increase self-efficacy or the belief that a satisfactory sex life could be achieved following treatment. The findings will be used to refine the intervention content before testing as part of a larger longitudinal study for examining its effectiveness.

The Tablet-Based, Engagement, Assessment, Support, and Sign-Posting (EASSi) Tool for Facilitating and Structuring Sexual Well-Being Conversations in Routine Prostate Cancer Care: Mixed-Methods Study.

BACKGROUND: Long-term side-effects associated with different prostate cancer treatment approaches are common. Sexual challenges are the most frequently occurring issues and can result in increased psychological morbidity. It is recognized that barriers to communication can make initiating discussions around sexual concerns in routine practice difficult. Health care professionals need to routinely initiate conversations, effectively engage with patients, and assess needs in order to provide essential support. One proposed method that could support health care professionals to do this involves the use of prompts or structured frameworks to guide conversations. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess feasibility, acceptability, and satisfaction with the tablet-based Engagement, Assessment, Support, and Sign-posting (EASSi) tool designed to facilitate and structure sexual well-being discussions in routine prostate cancer care. METHODS: Health care professionals (n=8) used the EASSi tool during 89 posttreatment appointments. Quantitative data were recorded based on program usage and surveys completed by health care professionals and patients. Qualitative data exploring perceptions on use of the tool were gathered using semistructured interviews with all health care professionals (n=8) and a sample of patients (n=10). RESULTS: Surveys were completed by health care professionals immediately following each appointment (n=89, 100%). Postal surveys were returned by 59 patients (66%). Health care professionals and patients reported that the tool helped facilitate discussions (81/89, 91% and 50/59, 85%, respectively) and that information provided was relevant (82/89, 92% and 50/59, 85%, respectively). The mean conversation duration was 6.01 minutes (SD 2.91). Qualitative synthesis identified the tool's ability to initiate and structure discussions, improve the "depth" of conversations, and normalize sexual concerns. CONCLUSIONS: The EASSi tool was appropriate and acceptable for use in practice and provided a flexible approach to facilitate routine brief conversations and deliver essential sexual well-being support. Further work will be conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of using the tablet-based tool in prostate cancer care settings.

Development of a conceptual framework to improve sexual wellbeing communication in routine prostate cancer care.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically develop a framework to improve sexual wellbeing communication in routine prostate cancer care. METHODS: The Theoretical Domains Framework was used to guide a multi-phase process used to identify components of the framework based on evidence reviews, semi-structured interviews and stakeholder workshops. 'Think-aloud' testing was used to explore usability, potential barriers and other factors relevant to implementation. RESULTS: A conceptual communication framework consisting of 'Engagement' (E), 'Assessment' (A), information and 'Support' (S) and 'Sign-posting' (Si) sections was developed. The framework emphasises routine engagement to normalise sexual concerns, brief, non-sensitive assessment, personalised advice based on treatment type and relationship status, and a mechanism for referral to additional support or self-management resources in the form of a patient and partner handout. Usability testing identified strategies to promote implementation. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed framework is appropriate for use in routine practice and appears to be acceptable to patients, partners and healthcare professionals. Its use may help address gaps in sexual wellbeing support for men and partners living with prostate cancer. Further work will be conducted evaluating an online engagement tool, modelled on the framework. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: The EASSi framework can facilitate and structure sexual wellbeing conversations and ensure fundamental but individualised support is provided routinely in prostate cancer care.

"Man in the driving seat": A grounded theory study of the psychosocial experiences of Black African and Black Caribbean men treated for prostate cancer and their partners.

OBJECTIVE: Evidence suggests that treatment side-effects of prostate cancer (CaP) substantially affect the psychosocial well-being of affected men and their partners. However, this phenomenon is poorly understood among high risk (1 in 4) Black African (BA)/Black Caribbean (BC) men and their partners, as they are currently under-represented in global research on CaP survivorship. This study explored the psychosocial experiences of BA/BC men with CaP and their partners in the United Kingdom as they lived through the side effects of CaP treatment within their own sociocultural and marital contexts. METHODS: Using constructivist grounded theory methodology, interviews and focus groups were conducted with eligible men (n = 25), partners (n = 11), and health care professionals (HCPs) (n = 11) recruited in England. Data were iteratively analysed using constant comparison following the key stages of initial, focused, and theoretical coding until saturation was achieved. RESULTS: Data analysis culminated in the development of a substantive theory "man in the driving seat," which describes the experiences of BA/BC men with CaP and their partners within their context. Culturally informed gender roles and identities influenced how men and partners responded and coped with the side effects of CaP treatment. There was a hierarchy of power within the BA/BC relationship, in which men were dominantly positioned as leaders, whilst partners mostly operated from a supportive but "accepting" position. CONCLUSION: Inclusive and culturally sensitive individual and couple-focused psychosocial support, which is devoid of stereotyping and recognises the experiences of both BA/BC men and their partners is recommended.

Evaluating a psychosocial intervention for men with prostate cancer and their partners: Outcomes and lessons learned from a randomized controlled trial.

AIM: This study evaluated the process and outcome of a psychosocial intervention for men with prostate cancer and their partners. As more men survive prostate cancer, they and their partners need help and support to help them cope with the physical and psychosocial effects of the disease and treatment. There is a lack of psychosocial interventions for men with prostate cancer and their partners. METHODS: A randomized controlled trial was conducted with 34 participants to measure the effects of the intervention on selected psychosocial outcomes, post-intervention and at one month' follow-up. The nine-week program (CONNECT) consisted of three group and two telephone sessions. It focused on symptom management, sexual dysfunction, uncertainty management, positive thinking and couple communication. The outcomes, measured by validated tools were: self-efficacy, quality of life, symptom distress, communication, uncertainty and illness benefits. RESULTS: The men in the intervention group did better on two outcomes (communication and support) than controls. Partners in the intervention group did better than controls on most outcomes. Less participants than expected participated in the trial. The reasons for non-participation included partners not wishing to participate, men not interested in group work, and not understanding the core purpose of the intervention. The cost of training facilitators and for delivering the intervention appeared to be low. CONCLUSION: The knowledge generated from this study will be beneficial for all those grappling with the challenges of developing, implementing and evaluating complex psychosocial interventions. This study has also highlighted the difficulties in recruiting men and their partners in clinical trials.

Self-efficacy and self-care behaviours among adults with type 2 diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM) has an impact on an individuals' health and is influenced by glycemic control. AIM: To examine the relationship between glycemic control, demographic and clinical factors on self-efficacy and self-care behaviours among adults with T2DM. DESIGN: A correlational, descriptive study was used. One hundred and forty Omani adults with T2DM were recruited from a public hospital. METHODS: Data on self-efficacy, self-care behaviours and glycemic control were collected between April and July 2016. The study was approved by the College Ethics Committee and Hospital Board. Bivariate and multivariate analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Most adults had a fasting blood glucose >7.2mmol/L (90.7%), with the majority demonstrating 'uncontrolled' or poor HbA1c of >8% (65%). Variance of self-care behaviour (20.6%) and 31.3% of the variance of the self-efficacy was explained by the age, duration of diabetes, medication, HbA1c and prevention of activities of living. CONCLUSIONS: Adults with T2DM with poor glycemic control were more probable to have poor self-efficacy and self-care behaviours. Glycemic control has an effect on improving diet, exercise, medication, foot care efficacy and behaviours. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The study recommends using these findings to plan self-efficacy and self-care behaviour to improve glycemic control among adults with T2DM.

Online support groups for women with breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Survival rates for women with a diagnosis of breast cancer continue to improve. However, some women may experience physical, psychological and emotional effects post diagnosis, throughout treatment and beyond. Support groups can provide opportunities for people to share their experiences and learn from others. As the number of online support groups increases, more and more women with breast cancer will likely access them. OBJECTIVES: To assess effects of online support groups on the emotional distress, uncertainty, anxiety, depression and quality of life (QoL) of women with breast cancer. SEARCH METHODS: We searched for trials in the Cochrane Breast Cancer Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 4), MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO on 2 May 2016, and we handsearched journals and reference lists. We also searched the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) search portal and clinicaltrials.gov on 2 May 2016. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing effects of online support groups on women with a diagnosis of breast cancer and women who have completed breast cancer treatment. We included studies comparing online support groups with a usual care group, and studies comparing two or more types of online support groups (without a usual care group). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We presented outcome data using mean differences (MDs) and standardised mean differences (SMDs) along with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and we used the fixed-effect model when appropriate. We assessed the quality of the body of evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included six studies (492 women) that assessed online support groups for women with breast cancer. Online support groups in these six trials lasted from six to 30 weeks. Women participated in these groups between 1.5 and 2.5 hours per week, and investigators conducted all studies in the USA. Participants were predominantly white and well educated and were moderate to high earners. Four studies compared an online support group versus a control group, and the other two compared a 'moderated' versus a 'peer-led' online support group, and a 'standard' versus an 'enhanced' online support group, respectively.None of the included studies measured 'emotional distress' or uncertainty. One study (78 women) for which data for analysis were missing reported no positive effects of online support on 'distress' and 'cancer-specific distress' versus support provided by a control group. Two studies measured anxiety: One study (72 women) found no difference in anxiety at the end of the intervention between the online support group and the control group (MD -0.40, 95% CI -6.42 to 5.62; low-quality evidence), and the second study (184 women) reported a reduction in anxiety levels at the end of the intervention when comparing the 'standard' support group (run by participants without prompting from health professionals) versus an 'enhanced' online support group (in which participants were specifically asked by the researcher to respond to one another's need for support).Five studies (414 women) measured depression. Three studies compared depression in the online support group with depression in the control group. Pooled data from two studies (120 women) showed a small to moderate reduction in depression in the online support group compared with control groups at the end of the intervention (SMD -0.37, 95% CI -0.75 to 0.00; very low-quality evidence). The third study, a pilot study (30 women), provided no data for analysis but reported no difference in depression between participants in support and control groups at the end of the intervention. Of the remaining two studies that measured depression, one study (60 women) provided no extractable data for comparison but reported no difference in depressive symptoms between a 'moderated' and a 'peer-led' support group; the other study (184 women) reported greater reduction in depression in the 'standard' support group than in the 'enhanced' online support group.Three studies measured quality of life. One pilot study (30 women) provided limited data for analysis but reported no change in quality of life at the end of the intervention. Only two studies (140 women) provided data for pooling and showed no positive effects on quality of life at four months post intervention compared with controls (SMD -0.11, 95% CI -0.47 to 0.24; very low-quality evidence). At 12 months post intervention, one study (78 women) reported that the intervention group did not attain better quality of life scores than the control group (MD -10.89, 95% CI -20.41 to -1.37; low-quality evidence).We found no data for subgroup analyses on stage of disease, treatment modality and types and doses of interventions. No studies measured adverse effects. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review did not find the evidence required to show whether participation in online support groups was beneficial for women with breast cancer, because identified trials were small and of low or very low quality. Large, rigorous trials with ethnically and economically diverse participants are needed to provide robust evidence regarding the psychosocial outcomes selected for this review.

Facilitators' delivery of a psychosocial intervention in a controlled trial for men with prostate cancer and their partners: a process evaluation.

AIM: The aim of this paper was to report the process evaluation of facilitators' delivery of a psychosocial intervention (called CONNECT), in a randomized controlled trial, to men with prostate cancer and their partners. BACKGROUND: There is a lack of information on the process of implementing psychosocial interventions in controlled trials and, in particular, on the role and performance of facilitators who deliver them. Yet, this information is crucial in assessing whether these interventions are effective or not and why. DESIGN: Qualitative design. METHODS: Semi-structured qualitative interviews and diaries were used to collect data (January-October 2012) from four facilitators and a co-facilitator. Data were analysed using the Miles et al. RESULTS: Five themes were discernible. These were 'difficulties to keep to the structure of the intervention', 'selective coverage of topics', 'partner participation', 'overall impression of the group and telephone sessions' and 'perceived benefits to participants'. Issues such as not keeping to the aim of the intervention, deviating from the content and/or reluctance in discussing sensitive issues such as sexual health may mean that the psychosocial effects of the intervention may not have been fully realized. CONCLUSIONS: These findings will be useful for further development and evaluation of the intervention. A tentative conceptual framework of factors, related to facilitators, influencing the fidelity of interventions in the context of controlled trials, is offered. This model, which requires further development and testing, will be useful for researchers worldwide who are involved in developing interventions and training facilitators.

Foot care behaviors among adults with type 2 diabetes.

AIM: The aim of the study was to determine factors influencing foot care behaviors among adults with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: A correlational descriptive study was conducted with a random sample of 160 adults with type 2 diabetes from the public hospital between April and July 2014. RESULTS: Just over 15% of the sample had a history of foot ulcers and almost 42% had numbness/tingling and pain in their feet. Positive foot care behaviors were correlated with higher income, higher educational attainment, lower body weight, positive attitude and higher awareness of diabetes and its management. CONCLUSION: Targeting type 2 diabetes people with low level of education, low income and overweight may help to enhance their foot care and reduce foot complications in similar populations, Implications. Those most at risk of foot problems should be targeted for education to increase their awareness of ways to prevent and to manage foot problems.

The experience and perceptions of men with prostate cancer and their partners of the CONNECT psychosocial intervention: a qualitative exploration.

AIM: To explore the experience of prostate cancer survivors and their partners of the CONNECT psychosocial intervention. BACKGROUND: There is a scarcity of evidence relating to interventions to help men and their partners cope with the after affects of prostate cancer treatment. DESIGN: This study employed a qualitative design for in depth exploration through couple interviews. The addition of a short process evaluation questionnaire was used to supplement the qualitative data. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted between January 2012-October 2012 with a purposive sample of 11 couple dyads who had participated in the CONNECT intervention. Data were analysed using inductive content analysis. Simple descriptive statistics were used to analyse the findings from the questionnaire data. RESULTS: Couples perceived benefits of participating in the intervention to include: opportunities to share experiences, gain validation, obtain information and engage in couple care. The expertise of the professional facilitator and group dynamics were highlighted as factors influencing the success of the intervention. Potential areas for improvement of the intervention were identified as being: further development of the sexual dysfunction component; incorporation of a partner specific session to better address their needs; determination of optimal delivery format and timing; and further tailoring of the components of the intervention. CONCLUSION: Although there were areas that could be further improved, this psychosocial intervention was valued by the participants. The insight gained from this qualitative exploration can be used to make the necessary changes before the intervention can be tested in a large randomised controlled trial.

Perception of and satisfaction with the clinical learning environment among nursing students.

BACKGROUND: Clinical nursing education provides baccalaureate nursing students an opportunity to combine cognitive, psychomotor, and affective skills in the Middle East. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the paper is to assess the satisfaction with and effectiveness of the clinical learning environment among nursing students in Oman. DESIGN: A cross-sectional descriptive design was used. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A convenience sample consisting of 310 undergraduate nursing students was selected in a public school of nursing in Oman. METHODS: Ethical approval was obtained from the Research and Ethics Committee, College of Nursing in 2011. A standardized, structured, validated and reliable Clinical Learning Environment Supervision Teacher Evaluation instrument was used. Informed consent was obtained from all the students. Data was analyzed with ANOVA and structural equation modeling. RESULTS: Satisfaction with the clinical learning environment (CLE) sub-dimensions was highly significant and had a positive relationship with the total clinical learning environment. In the path model 35% of its total variance of satisfaction with CLE is accounted by leadership style, clinical nurse commitment (variance=28%), and patient relationships (R(2)=27%). Higher age, GPA and completion of a number of clinical courses were significant in the satisfaction with the CLE among these students. CONCLUSIONS: Nurse educators can improvise clinical learning placements focusing on leadership style, premises of learning and nursing care, nurse teacher, and supervision while integrating student, teacher and environmental factors. Hence the clinical learning environment is integral to students' learning and valuable in providing educational experiences. RELEVANCE TO PRACTICE: The CLE model provides information to nurse educators regarding best clinical practices for improving the CLE for BSN students.

Psychosocial interventions for men with prostate cancer: a Cochrane systematic review.

To evaluate the effectiveness of psychosocial interventions for men with prostate cancer in improving quality of life (QoL), self-efficacy and knowledge and in reducing distress, uncertainty and depression. We searched for trials using a range of electronic databases including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO to October 2013, together with hand searching of journals and reference lists. Randomised controlled trials were eligible if they included psychosocial interventions that explicitly used one or a combination of the following approaches: cognitive behavioural, psycho-educational, supportive and counselling. Interventions had to be delivered or facilitated by trained or lay personnel. Our outcomes were an improvement in QoL, self-efficacy and knowledge and a reduction in distress, uncertainty and depression. Pairs of review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We analysed data using standardised mean differences (SMDs), random-effects models and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). In all, 19 studies with a total of 3 204 men, with a diagnosis of prostate cancer, comparing psychosocial interventions vs usual care were included in this review. Men in the psychosocial intervention group had a small, statistically significant improvement in the physical component of general health-related QoL (GHQoL) at end of intervention (SMD 0.12, 95% CI 0.01-0.22) based on low quality evidence. There was no clear evidence of benefit associated with psychosocial interventions for the mental component of GHQoL at end of intervention (SMD -0.04, 95% CI -0.15 to 0.06) based on moderate quality evidence. At end of intervention, cancer-related QoL showed a small improvement after psychosocial interventions (SMD 0.21, 95% CI 0.04-0.39). For prostate cancer-specific and symptom-related QoL, the differences between intervention and control groups were not significant. There was no clear evidence that psychosocial interventions were beneficial in improving self-efficacy at end of intervention (SMD 0.16, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.38) based on very low quality evidence. Men in the psychosocial intervention group had a moderate increase in prostate cancer knowledge at end of intervention (SMD 0.51, 95% CI 0.32-0.71) based on very low quality evidence. A small increase in knowledge with psychosocial interventions was noted at 3 months after intervention (SMD 0.31, 95% CI 0.04-0.58). The results for uncertainty (SMD -0.05, 95% CI -0.35 to 0.26) and distress (SMD 0.02, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.15) at end of intervention were compatible with both benefit and harm based on very low quality evidence. Finally, there was no clear evidence of benefit associated with psychosocial interventions for depression at end of intervention (SMD -0.18, 95% CI -0.51 to 0.15) based on very low quality evidence. The overall risk of bias in the included studies was unclear or high, primarily as the result of performance bias. No data about stage of disease or treatment with androgen-deprivation therapy were extractable for subgroup analysis. Only one study addressed adverse effects. Overall, this review shows that psychosocial interventions may have small, short-term beneficial effects on certain domains of wellbeing, as measured by the physical component of GHQoL and cancer-related QoL when compared with usual care. Prostate cancer knowledge was also increased. However, this review failed to show a statistically significant effect on other domains such as symptom-related QoL, self-efficacy, uncertainty, distress or depression. Moreover, when beneficial effects were seen, it remained uncertain whether the magnitude of effect was large enough to be considered clinically important. The quality of evidence for most outcomes was rated as very low according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system, reflecting study limitations, loss to follow-up, study heterogeneity and small sample sizes. We were unable to perform meaningful subgroup analyses based on disease stage or treatment method. Although some findings of this review are encouraging, they do not provide sufficiently strong evidence to permit meaningful conclusions about the effects of these interventions in men with prostate cancer. Additional well executed and transparently reported research studies are necessary to establish the role of psychosocial interventions in men with prostate cancer.

A longitudinal study of coping strategies in men receiving radiotherapy and neo-adjuvant androgen deprivation for prostate cancer: a quantitative and qualitative study.

AIM: This paper reports a study on how men cope with the side-effects of radiotherapy and neo-adjuvant androgen deprivation for prostate cancer up to 1 year after treatment. BACKGROUND: With early detection and improved treatments, prostate cancer survivors are living longer with the disease and the side-effects of treatment. How they cope affects their long-term physical and mental health. DESIGN: A prospective, longitudinal, exploratory design using both qualitative and quantitative methods was used in this study. METHOD: Between September 2006-September 2007 149 men who were about to undergo radical radiotherapy ± androgen deprivation for localized prostate cancer in Northern Ireland were recruited to the study. They completed the Brief Cope scale at four time-points. RESULTS: Acceptance, positive reframing, emotional support, planning and, just getting on with it, were the most common ways of coping. Fewer men used coping strategies less at 6 months and 1 year after radiotherapy in comparison to pre-treatment and 4-6 weeks after radiotherapy. Interviews with these men demonstrated that men adapted to a new norm, with the support of their wives/partners and did not readily seek professional help. A minority of men used alcohol, behavioural disengagement and self blame as ways of coping. CONCLUSION: Men used a variety of ways of coping to help them deal with radiotherapy and neo-adjuvant androgen deprivation for up to 12 months after radiotherapy. Interventions need to be developed to take account of the specific needs of partners of men with prostate cancer and single men who have prostate cancer.

Getting psychosocial interventions into mental health nursing practice: a survey of skill use and perceived benefits to service users.

AIM: To investigate the use of psychosocial interventions by mental health nurses following training and perceived benefits to service users. BACKGROUND: Psychosocial interventions are recommended to support the recovery of persons with enduring mental illness. Despite two decades of postgraduate training in psychosocial interventions internationally, implementation challenges still remain. DESIGN: A cross-sectional exploratory, descriptive survey was employed. METHODS: A survey was mailed to the total population of nurses (n = 58) working in some health regions in Ireland who completed training in psychosocial interventions between 2005-2010. Data were collected between November 2011-January 2012, yielding a response rate of 64%. Descriptive and correlational statistics were used to analyse the data. RESULTS: There were statistically significant increases in the use of psychosocial interventions post training. Cognitive behavioural therapy and family interventions were the least used interventions. Assessment and outcome measures, concordance therapy and relapse prevention were preferential interventions. Perceived outcomes for service users were awareness of relapse indicators, enhanced coping skills and fewer admissions. Case load demands, lack of access to supervision and time constraints prevented implementation. Free text comments indicated a dissonance between generic nursing roles and implementation of structured psychosocial interventions in practice. CONCLUSIONS: The findings indicate a requirement for nursing leadership to legitimize psychosocial interventions as core nursing work. For service users to experience this type of nursing, we propose the nomination of dedicated psychosocial intervention nurses to multidisciplinary teams. Support through guidelines, clinical supervision and audit by senior nurse managers is critical to implementation.

Psychosocial interventions for men with prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: As the incidence and prevalence of prostate cancer continue to rise, the number of men needing help and support to assist them in coping with disease and treatment-related symptoms and their psychosocial effects is likely to increase. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of psychosocial interventions for men with prostate cancer in improving quality of life (QoL), self-efficacy and knowledge and in reducing distress, uncertainty and depression. SEARCH METHODS: We searched for trials using a range of electronic databases including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO to October 2013, together with handsearching of journals and reference lists. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of psychosocial interventions for men at any stage of prostate cancer. We included psychosocial interventions that explicitly used one or a combination of the following approaches: cognitive behavioural, psychoeducational, supportive and counselling. Interventions had to be delivered or facilitated by trained or lay personnel. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Pairs of review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We analysed data using standardised mean differences (SMDs), random-effects models and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). MAIN RESULTS: Nineteen studies comparing psychosocial interventions versus usual care in a total of 3204 men with prostate cancer were included in this review. All but three of these studies were conducted in the United States.Men in the psychosocial intervention group had a small, statistically significant improvement in the physical component of general health-related quality of life (GHQoL) at end of intervention (1414 participants, SMD 0.12, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.22) based on low-quality evidence. A small improvement in favour of psychosocial interventions (SMD 0.24, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.47) was also seen in the physical component of GHQoL at end of intervention for group-based interventions. No clear evidence of benefit was found for GHQoL scores at end of intervention with individual-based interventions compared with controls. Also, no clear evidence suggested that psychosocial interventions were beneficial in improving the physical component of GHQoL at four to six and at eight to 12 months post-intervention. In addition, no clear evidence showed benefit associated with psychosocial interventions for the mental component of GHQoL at end of intervention (1416 participants, SMD -0.04, 95% CI -0.15 to 0.06) based on moderate-quality evidence. Results for the mental component of GHQoL at four to six and at eight to 12 months post-intervention were compatible with benefit and harm. At end of intervention, cancer-related QoL showed a small improvement following psychosocial interventions (SMD 0.21, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.39), but at eight and 12 months, the effect was compatible with benefit and harm. For prostate cancer-specific and symptom-related QoL, the differences between groups were not significant.No clear evidence indicated that psychosocial interventions were beneficial in improving self-efficacy at end of intervention (337 participants, SMD 0.16, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.38) based on very low-quality evidence in three studies that assessed individual-based interventions. The results for self-efficacy at six to eight and at 12 months post-intervention were compatible with benefit and harm. Men in the psychosocial intervention group had a moderate increase in prostate cancer knowledge at end of intervention (506 participants, SMD 0.51, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.71) based on very low-quality evidence in two studies; this increase was also observed in the subgroups of group-based and individual-based interventions. A small increase in knowledge with psychosocial interventions was noted at three months post-intervention (SMD 0.31, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.58).The results for uncertainty (916 participants, SMD -0.05, 95% CI -0.35 to 0.26) and distress (916 participants, SMD 0.02, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.15) at end of intervention were compatible with both benefit and harm based on very low-quality evidence. No clear evidence suggests that psychosocial interventions were beneficial in reducing uncertainty and distress between groups at six to eight and at 12 months post-intervention. Finally, no clear evidence of benefit is associated with psychosocial interventions for depression at end of intervention (434 participants, SMD -0.18, 95% CI -0.51 to 0.15) based on very low-quality evidence. Individual-based interventions significantly reduced depression when compared with usual care groups. The results for depression at six and at 12 months post-intervention were compatible with benefit and harm.The overall risk of bias in the included studies was unclear or high, primarily as the result of performance bias.No data regarding stage of disease or treatment with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) were extractable for subgroup analysis. Only one study addressed adverse effects. High attrition could indicate that some participants may not have been comfortable with the interventions. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Overall, this review shows that psychosocial interventions may have small, short-term beneficial effects on certain domains of well-being, as measured by the physical component of GHQoL and cancer-related QoL when compared with usual care. Prostate cancer knowledge was also increased. However, this review failed to demonstrate a statistically significant effect on other domains such as symptom-related QoL, self-efficacy, uncertainty, distress or depression. Moreover, when beneficial effects were observed, it remained uncertain whether the magnitude of effect was large enough to be considered clinically important. The quality of evidence for most outcomes was rated as very low according to GRADE, reflecting study limitations, loss to follow-up, study heterogeneity and small sample sizes. We were unable to perform meaningful subgroup analyses based on disease stage or treatment modality. Although some findings of this review are encouraging, they do not provide sufficiently strong evidence to permit meaningful conclusions about the effects of these interventions in men with prostate cancer. Additional well-done and transparently reported research studies are necessary to establish the role of psychosocial interventions in men with prostate cancer.

Psychosocial interventions for patients with head and neck cancer.

BACKGROUND: A diagnosis of head and neck cancer, like many other cancers, can lead to significant psychosocial distress. Patients with head and neck cancer can have very specific needs, due to both the location of their disease and the impact of treatment, which can interfere with basic day-to-day activities such as eating, speaking and breathing. There is a lack of clarity on the effectiveness of the interventions developed to address the psychosocial distress experienced by patients living with head and neck cancer. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of psychosocial interventions to improve quality of life and psychosocial well-being for patients with head and neck cancer. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Ear, Nose and Throat Disorders Group Trials Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); PubMed; EMBASE; CINAHL; Web of Science; BIOSIS Previews; Cambridge Scientific Abstracts; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the most recent search was 17 December 2012. SELECTION CRITERIA: We selected randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised controlled trials of psychosocial interventions for adults with head and neck cancer. For trials to be included the psychosocial intervention had to involve a supportive relationship between a trained helper and individuals diagnosed with head and neck cancer. Outcomes had to be assessed using a validated quality of life or psychological distress measure, or both. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected trials, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias, with mediation from a third author where required. Where possible, we extracted outcome measures for combining in meta-analyses. We compared continuous outcomes using either mean differences (MD) or standardised mean differences (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI), with a random-effects model. We conducted meta-analyses for the primary outcome measure of quality of life and secondary outcome measures of psychological distress, including anxiety and depression. We subjected the remaining outcome measures (self esteem, coping, adjustment to cancer, body image) to a narrative synthesis, due to the limited number of studies evaluating these specific outcomes and the wide divergence of assessment tools used. MAIN RESULTS: Seven trials, totaling 542 participants, met the eligibility criteria. Studies varied widely on risk of bias, interventions used and outcome measures reported. From these studies, there was no evidence to suggest that psychosocial intervention promotes global quality of life for patients with head and neck cancer at end of intervention (MD 1.23, 95% CI -5.82 to 8.27) as measured by the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30). This quality of life tool includes five functional scales, namely cognitive, physical, emotional, social and role. There was no evidence to demonstrate that psychosocial intervention provides an immediate or medium-term improvement on any of these five functional scales. From the data available, there was no significant change in levels of anxiety (SMD -0.09, 95% CI -0.40 to 0.23) or depression following intervention (SMD -0.03, 95% CI -0.24 to 0.19). At present, there is insufficient evidence to refute or support the effectiveness of psychosocial intervention for patients with head and neck cancer. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence for psychosocial intervention is limited by the small number of studies, methodological shortcomings such as lack of power, difficulties with comparability between types of interventions and a wide divergence in outcome measures used. Future research should be targeted at patients who screen positive for distress and use validated outcome measures, such as the EORTC scale, as a measure of quality of life. These studies should implement interventions that are theoretically derived. Other shortcomings should be addressed in future studies, including using power calculations that may encourage multi-centred collaboration to ensure adequate sample sizes are recruited.

A randomized controlled trial of a self-management psychosocial intervention for men with prostate cancer and their partners: a study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about interventions to help men and their partners cope with the after effects of prostate cancer treatment. The lack of in-depth descriptions of the intervention content is hindering the identification of which intervention (or component of an intervention) works. AIM: To describe the development and evaluation of the content of a self-management psychosocial intervention for men with prostate cancer and their partners. DESIGN: A feasibility randomized controlled trial including structure, process, and outcome analysis. METHODS: This 9-week intervention commences on completion of treatment and consists of three group and two telephone sessions. The intervention focuses on symptom management, sexual dysfunction, uncertainty management, positive thinking and couple communication. Forty-eight couples will be assigned to either the intervention or a control group receiving usual care. Participants will be assessed at baseline, immediately postintervention and at 1 and 6 months postintervention. Outcome measures for patients and caregivers include self-efficacy, quality of life, symptom distress, uncertainty, benefits of illness, health behaviour, and measures of couple communication and support. An additional caregiver assessment will be completed by the partner. DISCUSSION: The main purpose of this feasibility study is to investigate the acceptability of the CONNECT programme to men with prostate cancer and their partners and to gain feedback from the participants and facilitators to make changes to and enhance the programme. Reasons why men do not want to participate will be collated to enhance recruitment in the future. We will also test recruitment strategies, randomization procedures, and the acceptability of the questionnaires. Ethical approval granted December 2010.

Knowledge of blood transfusion among nurses.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To measure nurses' knowledge of blood transfusion in the United Arab Emirates. BACKGROUND: Blood transfusion is a fundamental aspect of nursing practice and nurses' knowledge of it is essential for safe practice. Yet little is known about their blood transfusion practice and the knowledge that underpins it. The few studies that have investigated this topic previously have shown deficiencies in both knowledge and practice. To date, no such study has been carried out in the Middle East. DESIGNS: A descriptive, cross-sectional study. METHODS: A random sample of 248 nurses from two general hospitals in the Emirate of Abu Dhabi. The response rate was 94AE3%. A knowledge questionnaire comprising six sections and 49 items was developed for this study. Data were analysed using descriptive and inferential statistics. RESULTS: The overall knowledge scores of nurses were generally low ranging from 27-56 of a possible score of 70. Data analysis revealed knowledge deficits in several key aspects of blood transfusion. There were statistically significant relationship between nurses' knowledge and the work setting, the country where they trained and type of qualifications. CONCLUSION: This survey highlighted knowledge deficits which could be detrimental to patient safety. These results have implications for nursing education, policy and practice. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Nurses have the responsibility to update their knowledge of and skills in carrying out blood transfusion. The tool developed in this study may be useful for educators and managers to identify gaps in knowledge and inform decisions to address them.

Quality of life in men receiving radiotherapy and neo-adjuvant androgen deprivation for prostate cancer: results from a prospective longitudinal study.

AIM: To report a study measuring the quality of life and side effects in men receiving radiotherapy and hormone ablation for prostate cancer up to 1 year after treatment. BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer incidence is increasing with the result that more men are living longer with the disease and the side effects of treatment. It is important to know the effects this has on their quality of life. DESIGN: Survey. METHOD: Between September 2006-September 2007, all men who were about to undergo radical conformal radiotherapy ± neo-adjuvant androgen deprivation for localized prostate cancer were invited to participate in the study; 149 men were recruited. They completed the European Organization on Research and Treatment of Cancer quality of life questionnaire C-30 and Prostate Cancer module PR25 at four time-points. RESULTS: At 4-6 weeks after radiotherapy, participants experienced the biggest relative decline in global quality of life, social, physical, and role functioning and an increase in treatment side effects. At 6 months postradiotherapy the majority of men experienced an improvement in their side effects. However, a minority of men were experiencing severe side effects of radiotherapy at 1 year post-treatment. Single men and men who had a low quality of life prior to radiotherapy, reported a lower quality of life at 1 year after treatment in comparison to married men. CONCLUSION: Men with prostate cancer suffer limitations due to the symptoms they experience and disruption to their quality of life. It is essential that nurses develop and deliver follow-up care which is flexible and appropriate to the individual needs of these men.