Couples-based interventions following prostate cancer treatment: a narrative review.
Couples-based interventions following prostate cancer treatment: a narrative review.
复制标题
DOI：
10.3978/j.issn.2223-4683.2015.04.04
复制
发表时间：
2015-04
影响因子：
2
通讯作者：
Avildsen I
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Nelson CJ;Emanu JC;Avildsen I
前列腺癌（PC）治疗后的性功能障碍通常会导致性回避和性亲密的丧失，这可能导致关系紧张。本综述旨在评估六项旨在解决PC治疗后的关系和性亲密关系的研究，并讨论可能有助于产生更有效的干预措施的方法问题。用于进行文献检索的电子数据库包括Medline、PsychINFO和Web of Science。研究包括：随机对照试验（RCT），使用诊断为PC的任何阶段的男性样本，进行心理社会干预，并解决至少一个性和关系结果。总的来说，文献得出的结果好坏参半。虽然报告了重要的调查结果，但许多主要假设没有实现。这六项研究表明，PC男性可能受益于与勃起功能障碍（艾德）治疗方案相关的教育和支持，而他们的伴侣可能更多地受益于关注关系问题的干预措施。重要的方法学局限性包括：选择的一般结果的措施，而不是具体的性或亲密关系的结果，缺乏评估的痛苦或困扰的患者/夫妇作为研究的进入标准，研究人群的异质性，缺乏创新的干预内容，因为目前的研究测试标准的教育干预，性治疗技术和夫妇治疗策略，只有边际成功。在这一领域需要基于创新理论方法的干预措施以及解决所述方法局限性的研究设计。
Sexual dysfunction following prostate cancer (PC) treatment often results in sexual avoidance and a loss of sexual intimacy, which can lead to relationship distress. This review aims to evaluate six studies intended to address relational and sexual intimacy following PC treatment and discuss methodological concerns which may help produce more effective interventions. Electronic databases used to conduct literature searches included Medline, PsychINFO, and Web of Science. Studies were included if they were: randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using samples of men diagnosed with PC of any stage, had a psychosocial intervention, and addressed at least one sexual and relational outcome. As a whole, the literature has produced mixed results. While significant findings were reported, many of the primary hypotheses were not achieved. The six studies show that men with PC may benefit from education and support related to treatment options for erectile dysfunction (ED), whereas their partners may benefit more from interventions focused on relational issues. Important methodological limitations included: selection of general outcome measures as opposed to measures specific to sexuality or intimacy outcomes, lack of assessing distress or bother of the patient/couples as study entry criteria, heterogeneity of study populations, and lack of innovative intervention content as the current studies tested standard educational interventions, sex therapies techniques, and couples therapy strategies with only marginal success. Interventions based on innovative theoretical approaches as well as study designs that address the outlined methodological limitations are needed in this area.