The perspective of prostate cancer patients and patients' partners on the psychological burden of androgen deprivation and the dyadic adjustment of prostate cancer couples
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Prostate cancer and its treatments, particularly androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), affect both patients and partners. This study assessed how prostate cancer treatment type, patient mood, and sexual function related to dyadic adjustment from patient and partner perspectives. METHODS: Men with prostate cancer (n = 206) and partners of men with prostate cancer (n = 66) completed an online survey assessing the patients' mood (profile of mood states short form), their dyadic adjustment (dyadic adjustment scale), and sexual function (expanded prostate cancer index composite). RESULTS: Analyses of covariance found that men on ADT reported better dyadic adjustment compared with men not on ADT. Erectile dysfunction was high for all patients, but a multivariate analysis of variance found that those on ADT experienced greater bother at loss of sexual function than patients not on ADT, suggesting that loss of libido when on ADT does not mitigate the psychological distress associated with loss of erections. In a multiple linear regression, patients' mood predicted their dyadic adjustment, such that worse mood was related to worse dyadic adjustment. However, more bother with patients' overall sexual function predicted lower relationship scores for the patients, while the patients' lack of sexual desire predicted lower dyadic adjustment for partners. CONCLUSIONS: Both patients and partners are impacted by the prostate cancer treatment effects on patients' psychological and sexual function. Our data help clarify the way that prostate cancer treatments can affect relationships and that loss of libido on ADT does not attenuate distress about erectile dysfunction. Understanding these changes may help patients and partners maintain a co-supportive relationship. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".