3.8 Article

What Gay and Bisexual Men Treated for Prostate Cancer Want in a Sexual Rehabilitation Program: Results of the Restore Needs Assessment

期刊

UROLOGY PRACTICE
卷 5, 期 3, 页码 192-196

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1016/j.urpr.2017.05.001

关键词

prostatic neoplasms; sexual and gender minorities; erectile dysfunction; urinary incontinence; sexual behavior

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [R21 CA182041] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: While erectile dysfunction and urinary incontinence are well-documented effects of prostate cancer treatment, the impact of sexual concerns on the lives of gay and bisexual men treated for prostate cancer has not been well researched. Specifically there are no known studies investigating what gay and bisexual men want in sexual recovery treatment. Methods: To conduct this needs assessment, we recruited 193 gay and bisexual men with prostate cancer from the largest online cancer support group in North America. As part of a wider study of sexual functioning, participants completed a 32-item needs assessment and a qualitative question assessing their needs. Results: There was high interest in a sexual recovery program across race/ethnicity and by treatment type. The most preferred formats were a self-directed online curriculum and participation in a support group specific to gay and bisexual men with prostate cancer. A variety of formats, language and contents were deemed appropriate and important by most participants. Frank explicit language and content were preferred. Three themes emerged in the qualitative analysis. Conclusions: Gay and bisexual men treated for prostate cancer want a recovery curriculum that explicitly addresses the sexual challenges they face before, during and after treatment. While differences were identified across race and treatment type, they were relatively few and minor in magnitude, suggesting that a single online curriculum could advance rehabilitation for this population.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据