Intervention Review

You have free access to this content

Psychosocial interventions for men with prostate cancer

  1. Kader Parahoo1,*,
  2. Suzanne McDonough2,
  3. Eilis McCaughan1,
  4. Jane Noyes3,
  5. Cherith Semple4,
  6. Elizabeth J Halstead5,
  7. Molly M Neuberger6,
  8. Philipp Dahm6,7

Editorial Group: Cochrane Urology Group

Published Online: 24 DEC 2013

Assessed as up-to-date: 1 OCT 2013

DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008529.pub3


How to Cite

Parahoo K, McDonough S, McCaughan E, Noyes J, Semple C, Halstead EJ, Neuberger MM, Dahm P. Psychosocial interventions for men with prostate cancer. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2013, Issue 12. Art. No.: CD008529. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008529.pub3.

Author Information

  1. 1

    University of Ulster, Institute of Nursing and Health Research, Coleraine, UK

  2. 2

    University of Ulster, Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, Newtownabbey, Co Antrim, UK

  3. 3

    Bangor University, Centre for Health-Related Research, Fron Heulog, Bangor, Wales, UK

  4. 4

    South Eastern Health & Social Care Trust, Cancer Services, Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK

  5. 5

    Bangor University, School of Healthcare Sciences, Bangor, Gwynedd, Wales, UK

  6. 6

    University of Florida, Department of Urology, Gainesville, Florida, USA

  7. 7

    Malcom Randall Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Gainesville, Florida, USA

*Kader Parahoo, Institute of Nursing and Health Research, University of Ulster, Coleraine, BT52 1SA, UK. ak.parahoo@ulster.ac.uk.

Publication History

  1. Publication Status: New
  2. Published Online: 24 DEC 2013

SEARCH

[Figure 1]
Figure 1. Study flow diagram.
[Figure 2]
Figure 2. Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.
[Figure 3]
Figure 3. Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.
[Figure 4]
Figure 4. Forest plot of comparison: 1 Psychosocial intervention versus usual care, outcome: 1.1 General health–related quality of life: physical component at end of intervention.
[Figure 5]
Figure 5. Forest plot of comparison: 1 Psychosocial intervention versus usual care, outcome: 1.16 Self-efficacy at end of intervention.
[Figure 6]
Figure 6. Forest plot of comparison: 1 Psychosocial intervention versus usual care, outcome: 1.18 Prostate cancer knowledge at end of intervention.
[Analysis 1.1]
Analysis 1.1. Comparison 1 Psychosocial intervention versus usual care, Outcome 1 General health–related quality of life: physical component at end of intervention.
[Analysis 1.2]
Analysis 1.2. Comparison 1 Psychosocial intervention versus usual care, Outcome 2 General health–related quality of life: physical component at four to six months.
[Analysis 1.3]
Analysis 1.3. Comparison 1 Psychosocial intervention versus usual care, Outcome 3 General health–related quality of life: physical component at eight to 12 months.
[Analysis 1.4]
Analysis 1.4. Comparison 1 Psychosocial intervention versus usual care, Outcome 4 General health–related quality of lIfe: mental component at end of intervention.
[Analysis 1.5]
Analysis 1.5. Comparison 1 Psychosocial intervention versus usual care, Outcome 5 General health–related quality of life: mental component at four to six months.
[Analysis 1.6]
Analysis 1.6. Comparison 1 Psychosocial intervention versus usual care, Outcome 6 General health–related quality of life: mental component at eight to 12 months.
[Analysis 1.7]
Analysis 1.7. Comparison 1 Psychosocial intervention versus usual care, Outcome 7 Cancer-related quality of life (FACT-G) at end of intervention.
[Analysis 1.8]
Analysis 1.8. Comparison 1 Psychosocial intervention versus usual care, Outcome 8 Cancer-related quality of life (FACT-G) at eight and 12 months.
[Analysis 1.9]
Analysis 1.9. Comparison 1 Psychosocial intervention versus usual care, Outcome 9 Prostate cancer–specific quality of life (FACT-P).
[Analysis 1.10]
Analysis 1.10. Comparison 1 Psychosocial intervention versus usual care, Outcome 10 Symptom-related quality of life (EPIC) at end of intervention.
[Analysis 1.11]
Analysis 1.11. Comparison 1 Psychosocial intervention versus usual care, Outcome 11 Symptom-related quality of life (EPIC) at six to eight months post-intervention.
[Analysis 1.12]
Analysis 1.12. Comparison 1 Psychosocial intervention versus usual care, Outcome 12 Symptom-related quality of life (EPIC) at 12 months post-intervention.
[Analysis 1.13]
Analysis 1.13. Comparison 1 Psychosocial intervention versus usual care, Outcome 13 Symptom-related quality of life (UCLA-PCI) at end of intervention.
[Analysis 1.14]
Analysis 1.14. Comparison 1 Psychosocial intervention versus usual care, Outcome 14 Symptom-related quality of life (UCLA-PCI) at six months.
[Analysis 1.15]
Analysis 1.15. Comparison 1 Psychosocial intervention versus usual care, Outcome 15 Symptom-related quality of life (UCLA-PCI) at 12 months.
[Analysis 1.16]
Analysis 1.16. Comparison 1 Psychosocial intervention versus usual care, Outcome 16 Self-efficacy at end of intervention.
[Analysis 1.17]
Analysis 1.17. Comparison 1 Psychosocial intervention versus usual care, Outcome 17 Self-efficacy at eight and 12 months.
[Analysis 1.18]
Analysis 1.18. Comparison 1 Psychosocial intervention versus usual care, Outcome 18 Prostate cancer knowledge at end of intervention.
[Analysis 1.19]
Analysis 1.19. Comparison 1 Psychosocial intervention versus usual care, Outcome 19 Prostate cancer knowledge at three months post-intervention.
[Analysis 1.20]
Analysis 1.20. Comparison 1 Psychosocial intervention versus usual care, Outcome 20 Uncertainty at end of intervention.
[Analysis 1.21]
Analysis 1.21. Comparison 1 Psychosocial intervention versus usual care, Outcome 21 Uncertainty at six to eight months post-intervention.
[Analysis 1.22]
Analysis 1.22. Comparison 1 Psychosocial intervention versus usual care, Outcome 22 Uncertainty at 12 months post-intervention.
[Analysis 1.23]
Analysis 1.23. Comparison 1 Psychosocial intervention versus usual care, Outcome 23 Distress.
[Analysis 1.24]
Analysis 1.24. Comparison 1 Psychosocial intervention versus usual care, Outcome 24 Depression at end of intervention.
[Analysis 1.25]
Analysis 1.25. Comparison 1 Psychosocial intervention versus usual care, Outcome 25 Depression at six months post-intervention.
[Analysis 1.26]
Analysis 1.26. Comparison 1 Psychosocial intervention versus usual care, Outcome 26 Depression at 12 months post-intervention.