Experiences of Partners of Prostate Cancer Survivors in Australia: A Qualitative Study

Background:In Australia, one in two men will be diagnosed with cancer and one in four of these will be prostate cancer (Cancer Australia, 2014). Excluding non-melanoma skin cancer, prostate cancer is the most common cancer diagnosed in Australia, which has one of the highest prostate cancer incident rates in the world (Ferlay et al., 2015). Survivorship is an important phase with a cancer trajectory of 93% five-year survival rates. Prostate cancer has been referred to as a couple’s disease as the psychosocial aspects of recovery impact the well-being of both men and their partners as treatment side effects that reduce the quality of life for both survivors and partners (Wittmann et al., 2009). Despite the impact of prostate cancer on partners, limited research exists on the needs or experiences of partners. This study aimed to address this gap in the literature by gathering data directly from partners to obtain a deeper understanding of their experiences of prostate cancer survivorship that helps inform healthcare service providers.

Methods:A qualitative approach was taken to explore participant views (N=16) via three focus groups and two in-depth interviews. Participants were recruited from local cancer community care centers and prostate cancer support groups. Participants were eligible if they were over 18 years of age, they could speak English, and an intimate or married partner of a man whose initial prostate cancer treatment had been completed at least twelve months prior to the study commencement. The study was open to both female and male partners.  

Results: Thematic analysis guided by an inductive data-driven approach was used to reflect how participants made meaning of their experience within the broader social context and to provide flexibility, as this area of research was not bound by theoretical frameworks. Themes from the first two focus groups and an interview were identified independently by the male researcher and female researcher to ensure consistency and validity in understanding and capturing partners’ experiences of prostate cancer survivorship. These themes were then compared between researchers. This method of triangulation validated the findings by ensuring that they reflected the richness of the data-set and reduced any researcher bias that contributed to the creation of this knowledge. Results revealed five themes relating to care-giver burden, knowledge deficit, isolation, changes of sexual relations, and unmet needs.

Implications: This study found that these partners experienced a range of factors that impacted their quality of life during prostate cancer survivorship. Health care providers need to consider whether sufficient support is available to deal with the complications faced by men and their partner before and after treatment, and into survivorship. This could indicate a need for some service providers to make strategic changes in information content and delivery, including the provision of appropriate information and interventions directly to partners to meet their needs during prostate cancer survivorship. Further research is needed to evaluate intervention strategies and communication approaches to assess how to meet the needs of couples across age groups, relationship stages and survivorship timespan.