Pub Date : 2018-06-01DOI: 10.17312/harringtonparkpress/2018.06.gbmlpc.013
W. West, B. Rosser, B. Capistrant, Beatriz Torres, B. Konety, Darryl Mitteldorf, M. Ross, Kristine M. C. Talley
C H A P T E R S U M M A R Y As part of a larger study of prostate cancer in gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men (GBM) in North America, we conducted individual semistructured telephone interviews with 6 GBM who received radiation treatment and 19 who underwent radical prostatectomy. GBM who underwent radiation treatment reported multiple sexual challenges similar to those published for men who underwent radical prostatectomy. Two key differences were identified. GBM who received radiation reported additional bowel and urinary urgency challenges that were not reported by GBM who had radical prostatectomies, which had implications for receptive anal sex. Conversely, GBM who received radiation were less likely to report severe erectile dysfunction, anatomical changes, and total ejaculate loss than GBM with radical prostatectomies. Clinical implications include the importance of addressing these differences in sexual outcomes when discussing treatment options with GBM, possibly as part of a broader discussion of role-in-sex and how to minimize the negative effects of treatment.
{"title":"The Effects of Radiation Therapy for Prostate Cancer on Gay and Bisexual Men’s Experiences of Mental Health, Sexual Functioning and Behavior, Sexual Identity, and Relationships","authors":"W. West, B. Rosser, B. Capistrant, Beatriz Torres, B. Konety, Darryl Mitteldorf, M. Ross, Kristine M. C. Talley","doi":"10.17312/harringtonparkpress/2018.06.gbmlpc.013","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17312/harringtonparkpress/2018.06.gbmlpc.013","url":null,"abstract":"C H A P T E R S U M M A R Y As part of a larger study of prostate cancer in gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men (GBM) in North America, we conducted individual semistructured telephone interviews with 6 GBM who received radiation treatment and 19 who underwent radical prostatectomy. GBM who underwent radiation treatment reported multiple sexual challenges similar to those published for men who underwent radical prostatectomy. Two key differences were identified. GBM who received radiation reported additional bowel and urinary urgency challenges that were not reported by GBM who had radical prostatectomies, which had implications for receptive anal sex. Conversely, GBM who received radiation were less likely to report severe erectile dysfunction, anatomical changes, and total ejaculate loss than GBM with radical prostatectomies. Clinical implications include the importance of addressing these differences in sexual outcomes when discussing treatment options with GBM, possibly as part of a broader discussion of role-in-sex and how to minimize the negative effects of treatment.","PeriodicalId":287468,"journal":{"name":"Gay & Bisexual Men Living with Prostate Cancer","volume":"141 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126546215","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-06-01DOI: 10.17312/HARRINGTONPARKPRESS/2018.06.GBMLPC.012
Tae L. Hart, C. Hare, D. Latini
C H A P T E R S U M M A R Y Although the literature on gay and bisexual men (GBM) living with prostate cancer has grown in recent years, little is known about the influence of social support and relationship status on illness adjustment in this group of men. The Illness Intrusiveness Theoretical Framework posits that the context of chronic illness, such as disease-related, treatment-related, and social factors, can either exacerbate or ameliorate the disruption of patients’ valued life activities. Using this framework, our study examined the relationship between positive social support and three domains of illness intrusiveness (relationships and personal development, sex and intimacy, and instrumental areas such as health, employment, and active recreation). Additionally, we examined how the association between social support and illness intrusiveness was affected by relationship status (i.e., being partnered or unpartnered). This crosssectional research project recruited 92 self-identified GBM from the online community and from local community centers that serve GBM. Participants completed a self-report packet of questionnaires online. Results showed that unpartnered (versus partnered) men reported less positive social support. We found that for unpartnered men, reporting greater positive social support was associated with less illness intrusiveness in two areas of their lives: relationships and personal development, as well as instrumental areas (health, finance, recreation). However, greater positive social support was not associated with reduced illness intrusiveness in partnered men. Although our findings cannot tell us whether positive support causes less illness intrusiveness, these data suggest that unpartnered GBM with prostate
{"title":"Illness Intrusiveness and Social Support in Gay and Bisexual Men with Prostate Cancer","authors":"Tae L. Hart, C. Hare, D. Latini","doi":"10.17312/HARRINGTONPARKPRESS/2018.06.GBMLPC.012","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17312/HARRINGTONPARKPRESS/2018.06.GBMLPC.012","url":null,"abstract":"C H A P T E R S U M M A R Y Although the literature on gay and bisexual men (GBM) living with prostate cancer has grown in recent years, little is known about the influence of social support and relationship status on illness adjustment in this group of men. The Illness Intrusiveness Theoretical Framework posits that the context of chronic illness, such as disease-related, treatment-related, and social factors, can either exacerbate or ameliorate the disruption of patients’ valued life activities. Using this framework, our study examined the relationship between positive social support and three domains of illness intrusiveness (relationships and personal development, sex and intimacy, and instrumental areas such as health, employment, and active recreation). Additionally, we examined how the association between social support and illness intrusiveness was affected by relationship status (i.e., being partnered or unpartnered). This crosssectional research project recruited 92 self-identified GBM from the online community and from local community centers that serve GBM. Participants completed a self-report packet of questionnaires online. Results showed that unpartnered (versus partnered) men reported less positive social support. We found that for unpartnered men, reporting greater positive social support was associated with less illness intrusiveness in two areas of their lives: relationships and personal development, as well as instrumental areas (health, finance, recreation). However, greater positive social support was not associated with reduced illness intrusiveness in partnered men. Although our findings cannot tell us whether positive support causes less illness intrusiveness, these data suggest that unpartnered GBM with prostate","PeriodicalId":287468,"journal":{"name":"Gay & Bisexual Men Living with Prostate Cancer","volume":"5 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125399375","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-06-01DOI: 10.17312/harringtonparkpress/2018.06.gbmlpc.011
J. Ussher, D. Rose, J. Perz, G. Dowsett, Andrew Kellett
C H A P T E R S U M M A R Y In a study of sexual rehabilitation after prostate cancer, gay and bisexual men (GBM) were more likely than heterosexual men (79% versus 56%) to report having tried medical or other aids to address erectile dysfunction. GBM were also more likely to have tried more than one medical aid (GBM M = 1.65 aids, heterosexual men M = 0.83 aids), including medication, penile injection, penile implant, and vacuum pump, and to have sought information about sexual rehabilitation after prostate cancer on the Internet, through counseling, or through a support group. There were no differences between the groups in satisfaction with the use of sexual aids. Accounts of satisfaction described medical and sexual aids as indispensable in maintaining sexual functioning and relationships. However, the majority of men in the study described hindrances, both physical and social, associated with using medical or sexual aids, which resulted in discontinued use of such aids. These barriers were the perceived artificiality of medical and other sexual aids; loss of sexual spontaneity and necessity to plan for sex; physical side effects; failure to achieve erectile response; financial cost; and lack of access to sexual rehabilitation information and support.
{"title":"Experiences of Sexual Rehabilitation after Prostate Cancer: A Comparison of Gay and Bisexual Men with Heterosexual Men","authors":"J. Ussher, D. Rose, J. Perz, G. Dowsett, Andrew Kellett","doi":"10.17312/harringtonparkpress/2018.06.gbmlpc.011","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17312/harringtonparkpress/2018.06.gbmlpc.011","url":null,"abstract":"C H A P T E R S U M M A R Y In a study of sexual rehabilitation after prostate cancer, gay and bisexual men (GBM) were more likely than heterosexual men (79% versus 56%) to report having tried medical or other aids to address erectile dysfunction. GBM were also more likely to have tried more than one medical aid (GBM M = 1.65 aids, heterosexual men M = 0.83 aids), including medication, penile injection, penile implant, and vacuum pump, and to have sought information about sexual rehabilitation after prostate cancer on the Internet, through counseling, or through a support group. There were no differences between the groups in satisfaction with the use of sexual aids. Accounts of satisfaction described medical and sexual aids as indispensable in maintaining sexual functioning and relationships. However, the majority of men in the study described hindrances, both physical and social, associated with using medical or sexual aids, which resulted in discontinued use of such aids. These barriers were the perceived artificiality of medical and other sexual aids; loss of sexual spontaneity and necessity to plan for sex; physical side effects; failure to achieve erectile response; financial cost; and lack of access to sexual rehabilitation information and support.","PeriodicalId":287468,"journal":{"name":"Gay & Bisexual Men Living with Prostate Cancer","volume":"179 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116897072","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：