Exploring gay couples' experience with sexual dysfunction after radical prostatectomy: a qualitative study.

This exploratory study examines the experience of three gay couples managing sexual dysfunction as a result of undergoing a radical prostatectomy. Semi-structured interviews were conducted as part of a larger study at an urban hospital in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Interview transcripts were transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using interpretative phenomenological analysis. The authors clustered 18 subordinate themes under 3 superordinate themes: (a) acknowledging change in sexual experience (libido, erectile function, sexual activity, orgasmic function); (b) accommodating change in sexual experience (strategies: emphasizing intimacy, embracing plan B, focus on the other; barriers: side-effect concerns, loss of naturalness, communication breakdown, failure to initiate, trial and failure, partner confounds); and (c) accepting change in sexual experience (indicators: emphasizing health, age attributions, finding a new normal; barriers: uncertain outcomes, treatment regrets). Although gay couples and heterosexual couples share many similar challenges, we discovered that gay men have particular sexual roles and can engage in novel accommodation practices, such as open relationships, that have not been noted in heterosexual couples. All couples, regardless of their level of sexual functioning, highlighted the need for more extensive programming related to sexual rehabilitation. Equitable rehabilitative support is critical to assist homosexual couples manage distress associated with prostatectomy-related sexual dysfunction.

Examining risk perception among men with a family history of prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE: This paper explores factors that influence the formulation of risk perception among men with a family history of prostate cancer who are currently attending a prostate cancer screening clinic. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with fifteen participants. Interview transcripts were analyzed using interpretative phenomenological analysis. RESULTS: The following themes were identified: Risk Information Pathways, Experience with Other Prostate Disease, Exposure to Prostate Cancer Screening, Exposure to Affected Relatives, Lifestyle Factors, Illness Beliefs, and Health-Based Risk Comparisons. CONCLUSION: Understanding the contributors to risk perception and applying this knowledge during screening visits and genetic counselling may help to reduce risk distortion and result in increased adherence to screening programs and reduced psychological distress. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Prostate cancer screening should incorporate counselling to address patient-specific risk concepts in order to increase the accuracy and maintain the stability of risk perceptions.