Manne, S.L., Kissane, D.W., Nelson, C.J., Mulhall, J.P., Winkel, G., & Zaider, T. (2011). Intimacy-enhancing psychological intervention for men diagnosed with prostate cancer and their partners: A pilot study. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 8(4), 1197–1209.
To evaluate (a) the impact of an intimacy-enhancing therapy (IET) versus a usual care (UC) program on survivor and partner psychological outcomes, including distress, well-being, and relationship outcomes (relationship satisfaction and intimacy), (b) the impact of an IET on relationship communication, and (c) the role of preintervention levels of each outcome variable on post-IET intervention outcome variables
Participants received assignment to either an IET or a UC group. The IET intervention consisted of five 90-minute couple sessions delivered by a trained therapist. This person focused on improving couples’ ability to comfortably share their thoughts and feelings to promote mutual understanding and support for cancer concerns and to facilitate emotional intimacy. The IET program techniques evolved from cognitive-behavioral and behavioral marital therapy practice and other published communication skills interventions adapted for prostate cancer. Careful attention was made to ensuring treatment fidelity by videotaping sessions and using manuals to structure the intervention. UC group participants received standard clinic psychosocial care. The IET group received the same surveys following the fifth and final session of the IET (approximately two months post-baseline). The UC and IET participants who did not complete sessions received a second round of surveys eight weeks after baseline assessment.
A pre/post-test pilot design was used.
Seventy-three percent of IET couples attended 80% or more of the sessions, but another 21.6% of the IET group did not attend any sessions following random assignment to the IET group. Treatment fidelity on 114 of 138 sessions averaged 87.4%. Intervention survivors and partners rated the sessions as “quite successful,” but only 72% of the intervention group reported completion of homework assignments as part of the IET program. With study attrition, an intent-to-treat statistical analysis approach was used.
There were no significant treatment effects for general distress, cancer-specific distress, and relationship intimacy for either survivors or partners. There were no significant treatment differences for relationship communication for either survivors or partners. IET effects were largely moderated by baseline couple relationship and psychosocial factors (individual distress). Survivors who had high levels of cancer concerns at baseline significantly reduced those concerns post-IET. Moderating effects of preintervention levels for self-disclosure and perceived partner disclosure and responsiveness resulted from the intervention. The IET program improved cancer-specific distress, low intimacy, martial satisfaction, and communication if a couple experienced problems in these areas before the intervention.
The IET had a marginally significant (p = 0.08) main effect on survivor well-being and improved overall outcomes for couples with fewer personal and relationship resources. Couples with more resources (e.g., higher educational level, stronger marital ties) experienced no improvement from the IET program.
Interventions such as the IET may prove valuable for couples challenged by treatment and outcomes of prostate cancer treatment. As members of the healthcare team, nurses have an obligation to assess prostate cancer survivors about their overall coping skills, learning, and relationship needs to offer patient- and couple-centered interventions to improve the quality of their relationships and adjustment to living with prostate cancer.