Family Wellbeing and Sexual Health of Patients Receiving Treatment for Prostate Cancer

Carielle Joy Rio; Taichi Goto; Chao-Pin Hsiao; Alexander L R Ross; Leorey N Saligan

doi:10.2147/CMAR.S421951

Family Wellbeing and Sexual Health of Patients Receiving Treatment for Prostate Cancer

Cancer Manag Res. 2023 Oct 31:15:1197-1206. doi: 10.2147/CMAR.S421951. eCollection 2023.

Authors

Carielle Joy Rio¹, Taichi Goto¹, Chao-Pin Hsiao², Alexander L R Ross¹, Leorey N Saligan²

Affiliations

¹ National Institute of Nursing Research, Division of Intramural Research, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.
² Case Western Reserve University School of Nursing, Cleveland, OH, USA.

Abstract

Purpose: Prostate cancer and its treatment may affect patients' sexual function and social wellbeing. This study investigated the relationship between social/family wellbeing and sexual health in patients with prostate cancer. Additionally, the moderating effect of clinical characteristics on this relationship was also explored.

Patients and methods: This is a descriptive correlational study using baseline data of a longitudinal study enrolling 137 patients with prostate cancer. Sexual Function (SF) and Sexual Function Distress (SFD) data were collected using the Symptom Index questionnaire. Demographic data were obtained during study intake and clinical data were obtained from chart review. Bivariate correlation determined the correlations among continuous demographic/clinical data, social/family wellbeing, and sexual health. Moderated regression analysis determined the moderating effects of clinical characteristics on the relationship of social/family wellbeing and sexual health.

Results: Moderate positive correlation was found between social/family wellbeing and SF, whereas a weak negative correlation was noted between social/family wellbeing and SFD. Depression was significantly correlated with social/family wellbeing and SFD. Both sexual health domains were significantly correlated with Gleason score. A significant difference was noted in the social/family wellbeing and both SF and SFD in participants receiving androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) compared to those not receiving ADT. Concomitant ADT use was the only clinical characteristic found to be a significant moderator of the relationship between social/family wellbeing and SFD, but none of the clinical characteristics was found to have a moderating effect on the relationship of social/family wellbeing and SF. Among patients who were not receiving ADT, high social/family wellbeing was associated with low SFD. Patients who were receiving ADT reported slightly higher SFD despite having higher social/family wellbeing.

Conclusion: Ensuring sexual health in patients with prostate cancer requires a comprehensive approach to address factors contributing to sexual health such as side effects of treatment and family wellbeing.

Keywords: family health; male reproductive health; sexual function; sexual function distress.