Online Support Group for Prostate Cancer Survivors
Online Support Group for Prostate Cancer Survivors
Once baseline data were complete, Cronbach's alphas were calculated for the 10 quality- of-life scales. For the SF-12, the alphas were physical health – 0.79 and mental health – 0.82. For the five the EPIC-26 domains, the alphas were urinary irritation/obstruction – 0.67, urinary incontinence – 0.57, bowel – 0.86, sexual – 0.89, and hormonal – 0.72. The life satisfaction scale had an alpha of 0.89, and the spouse positive and spouse negative scales had alphas of 0.74 and 0.70 respectively. The program satisfaction measure achieved a Cronbach's alpha of 0.79.
Table 1 displays the study population demographics. Descriptively, these individuals were 67.2 years of age (range 53 to 87 years; SD = 7.6), with no significant difference in age between the intervention and control group, t (38) = 1.17, p = 0.248. Caucasians comprised 85% of the participants, and almost half were Protestants. Almost all (92.5%) had two quarters or more of college. Our sam ple is similar to that of Katz et al. (2002), who studied socio-demographic characteristics of men attending prostate cancer support groups and concluded that men attending support groups had higher education levels than the general population. All participants in the study were diagnosed with prostate cancer in the last five years; this was an inclusion criterion; unfortunately, we do not know how long ago they were diagnosed. Inadvertently, an earlier version of the demographic/background questionnaire was sent to the participants, which had all other questions but left out questions regarding diagnosis and length of time from diagnosis.
The online support group members were asked about their satisfaction with the online support services. Quality of services was rated good or excellent by 75% of the intervention group, and 89% reported they generally or definitely received the kind of service they wanted. When asked about whether the online support community met their needs, 21% indicated all their needs had been met, while 37% reported that most of their needs had been met. On our satisfaction scale, satisfaction had a mean of 3.01 out of a possible 4. Ten members of the 20-member online support group responded to a question regarding what other services should be offered. Five gave variations on "none" or "don't know." Four made statements about the need for other prostate cancer patients to get this information – for example, "Doctors need to let their patients know about US TOO as soon as possible."
The Multivariate Analysis of Variance of the responses is presented in Table 2. This statistical test determines if there are mean differences across time and within groups when all 10 multiple item quality-of-life scales are considered together. The 10 scales include the two SF-12 scales, five EPIC-26 scales, one Satisfaction with Life Scale, and two relationship satisfaction scales. The results of this analysis determined there were no statistically significant effects of age and/or group, but there was a significant interaction of time by group (p = 0.036 across all 10 measures) showing there were changes over time that were different in the control and intervention groups. As shown in Table 3, the variables affected include perceived physical health (p < 0.001), urinary irritation and obstruction health (p < 0.019), sexual health (p < 0.001), hormonal health (p < 0.001), life satisfaction (p < 0.001), and spouse negative characteristics (p < 0.030).
Table 4 shows the means of all study variables. This depicts a general pattern; on the six variables where there were statistically significant interaction effects, the quality-of-life scores for the control group tended to drop between initial and second data collection interval, with a return to the initial scores at the third data collection interval. Specifically, perceived physical health, urinary irritation and obstruction health, sexual health, hormonal health (including hot flashes, breast tenderness/en large ment, feeling depressed, lack of energy, and change in body weight), life satisfaction, and spouse negative characteristics (for example, the spouse argues, lets you down, criticizes, gets on your nerves, or makes you feel tense) decreased among participants in the control group from the initial data collection interval to the second data collection interval, with a return to the initial scores at the third data collection interval. The quality of life for the intervention group appears to have improved on three of the quality-of-life measures – urinary irritation/obstruction health, sexual health, and hormonal health – but showed little change on perceived physical health, life satisfaction, and spouse negative characteristics. Again, where there were changes, all returned to baseline by 8 weeks.
Results
Scale Internal Consistency
Once baseline data were complete, Cronbach's alphas were calculated for the 10 quality- of-life scales. For the SF-12, the alphas were physical health – 0.79 and mental health – 0.82. For the five the EPIC-26 domains, the alphas were urinary irritation/obstruction – 0.67, urinary incontinence – 0.57, bowel – 0.86, sexual – 0.89, and hormonal – 0.72. The life satisfaction scale had an alpha of 0.89, and the spouse positive and spouse negative scales had alphas of 0.74 and 0.70 respectively. The program satisfaction measure achieved a Cronbach's alpha of 0.79.
Demographics
Table 1 displays the study population demographics. Descriptively, these individuals were 67.2 years of age (range 53 to 87 years; SD = 7.6), with no significant difference in age between the intervention and control group, t (38) = 1.17, p = 0.248. Caucasians comprised 85% of the participants, and almost half were Protestants. Almost all (92.5%) had two quarters or more of college. Our sam ple is similar to that of Katz et al. (2002), who studied socio-demographic characteristics of men attending prostate cancer support groups and concluded that men attending support groups had higher education levels than the general population. All participants in the study were diagnosed with prostate cancer in the last five years; this was an inclusion criterion; unfortunately, we do not know how long ago they were diagnosed. Inadvertently, an earlier version of the demographic/background questionnaire was sent to the participants, which had all other questions but left out questions regarding diagnosis and length of time from diagnosis.
Satisfaction With the Online Support Group
The online support group members were asked about their satisfaction with the online support services. Quality of services was rated good or excellent by 75% of the intervention group, and 89% reported they generally or definitely received the kind of service they wanted. When asked about whether the online support community met their needs, 21% indicated all their needs had been met, while 37% reported that most of their needs had been met. On our satisfaction scale, satisfaction had a mean of 3.01 out of a possible 4. Ten members of the 20-member online support group responded to a question regarding what other services should be offered. Five gave variations on "none" or "don't know." Four made statements about the need for other prostate cancer patients to get this information – for example, "Doctors need to let their patients know about US TOO as soon as possible."
Effects of the Intervention
The Multivariate Analysis of Variance of the responses is presented in Table 2. This statistical test determines if there are mean differences across time and within groups when all 10 multiple item quality-of-life scales are considered together. The 10 scales include the two SF-12 scales, five EPIC-26 scales, one Satisfaction with Life Scale, and two relationship satisfaction scales. The results of this analysis determined there were no statistically significant effects of age and/or group, but there was a significant interaction of time by group (p = 0.036 across all 10 measures) showing there were changes over time that were different in the control and intervention groups. As shown in Table 3, the variables affected include perceived physical health (p < 0.001), urinary irritation and obstruction health (p < 0.019), sexual health (p < 0.001), hormonal health (p < 0.001), life satisfaction (p < 0.001), and spouse negative characteristics (p < 0.030).
Table 4 shows the means of all study variables. This depicts a general pattern; on the six variables where there were statistically significant interaction effects, the quality-of-life scores for the control group tended to drop between initial and second data collection interval, with a return to the initial scores at the third data collection interval. Specifically, perceived physical health, urinary irritation and obstruction health, sexual health, hormonal health (including hot flashes, breast tenderness/en large ment, feeling depressed, lack of energy, and change in body weight), life satisfaction, and spouse negative characteristics (for example, the spouse argues, lets you down, criticizes, gets on your nerves, or makes you feel tense) decreased among participants in the control group from the initial data collection interval to the second data collection interval, with a return to the initial scores at the third data collection interval. The quality of life for the intervention group appears to have improved on three of the quality-of-life measures – urinary irritation/obstruction health, sexual health, and hormonal health – but showed little change on perceived physical health, life satisfaction, and spouse negative characteristics. Again, where there were changes, all returned to baseline by 8 weeks.
Source...