Five‐year outcomes from a randomised controlled trial of a couples‐based intervention for men with localised prostate cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Psychosexual morbidity is common after prostate cancer treatment, however, long-term prospective research is limited. We report 5-year outcomes from a couples-based intervention in dyads with men treated for localised prostate cancer with surgery. METHODS: A randomised controlled trial was conducted involving 189 heterosexual couples, where the man received a radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. The trial groups were peer support vs. nurse counselling versus usual care. Primary outcomes were sexual adjustment, unmet sexual supportive care needs, masculine self-esteem, marital satisfaction, and utilisation of erectile aids at 2-, 3-, 4- and 5-year follow-up. RESULTS: The effects of the interventions varied across the primary outcomes. Partners in the peer group had higher sexual adjustment than those in the usual care and nurses group at 2 and 3 years (P = 0.002-0.035). Men in usual care had lower unmet sexual supportive care needs than men in the peer and nurse groups (P = 0.001; P = 0.01) at 3 years. Women in usual care had lower sexual supportive care needs than women in the peer group at 2 and 3 years (P = 0.038; P = 0.001). Men in the peer and nurse group utilised sexual aids more than men in usual care; at 5 years 54% of usual care men versus 87% of men in peer support and 80% of men in the nurse group. CONCLUSION: Peer and nurse-administered psychosexual interventions have potential for increasing men's adherence to treatments for erectile dysfunction. Optimal effects may be achieved through an integrated approach applying these modes of support.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".