Australian men’s long term experiences following prostatectomy: A qualitative descriptive study

References

• AHRQ (2008). Comparative effectiveness of therapies for clinically localized prostate cancer: Executive summary, agency for healthcare research and quality. Pub. No. 08-EHC010-1, February 2008.
   Google Scholar
• AIHW (2008). Australia’s Health 2008. Canberra, Australia: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare.
   Google Scholar
• Albaugh, J., & Hacker, E. (2008). Measurement of quality of life in men with prostate cancer. Clinical Journal of Oncology Nursing, 12(1), 81–86.
   Google Scholar
• American Cancer Society (2007). Cancer facts and figures. Atlanta: American Cancer Society.
   Google Scholar
• Arora, N. K., & McHorney, C. A. (2000). Patient preferences for medical decision making: Who really wants to participate? Brief Report, Medical Care, 38(3), 335–341.
   Google Scholar
• Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) (2006). Cancer in Australia: A snapshot, 2004–2005, 4822.0.55.001.
   Google Scholar
• Baade, P. D., Coory, M. D., & Aitken, J. F. (2004). International trends in prostate-cancer mortality: The decrease is continuing and spreading. Cancer Causes Control, 15, 237–241.
   Google Scholar
• Baade, P. D., Steginga, S. K., Pinnock, C. B., & Aitken, J. F. (2005). Communicating prostate cancer risk: What should we be telling our patients? Medical Journal of Australia, 182, 472–475.
   Google Scholar
• Bermejo, C., Kristal, A., Zeliadt, S., Ramsey, S., & Thompson, I. (2004). Localized prostate cancer: Quality of life meets Whitmore’s legacy. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 96, 1348–1349.
   Google Scholar
• Bokhour, B., Clark, J., Thomas, S., Silliman, R., & Talcott, J. (2001). Sexuality after treatment for early prostate cancer: Exploring the meanings of ‘erectile dysfunction’. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 16(10), 649–655.
   Google Scholar
• Britten, N., Jones, R., Murphy, E., &; Stacey, R. (1995). Qualitative research methods in general practice and primary care. Family Practice, 12(1), 104–114.
   Google Scholar
• Burns, S. M., & Mahalik, J. R. (2007). Understanding how masculine gender scripts may contribute to men’s adjustment following treatment for prostate cancer. American Journal of Men’s Health, 1(4), 250–261.
   Google Scholar
• Burns, S. M., & Mahalik, J. R. (2008). Sexual functioning as a moderator of the relationship between masculinity and men’s adjustment following treatment for prostate cancer. American Journal of Men’s Health, 2(1), 6–16.
   Google Scholar
• Burt, J., Caelli, K., Moore, K., & Anderson, M. (2005). Radical prostatectomy: Men’s experiences and postoperative needs. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 14, 883–890.
   Google Scholar
• Buston, K., Parry-Jones, W., Livingston, M., Bogan, A., & Wood, S. (1998). Qualitative research. British Journal of Psychiatry, 172, 197–199.
   Google Scholar
• Butler, L., Downe-Wamboldt, B., Marsh, S., Bell, D., & Jarvi, K. (2001). Quality of life post radical prostatectomy: A male perspective. Urologic Nursing, 21, 283–288.
   Google Scholar
• Caelli, K., Ray, L., & Mill, J. (2003). ‘Clear as mud’: Toward greater clarity in generic qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 2(2), 1–24. Article 1. URL:http://www.ualberta.ca/~iiqm/backissues/pdf/caellietal.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Chambers, S., Schover, L., Halford, K., Clutton, S., Ferguson, M., Gordon, L., et al. (2008). ProsCan for couples: Randomised controlled trial of a couples based sexuality intervention for men with localised prostate cancer who receive radical prostatectomy. BioMed Central Cancer, 8, 226–234.
   Google Scholar
• Chapple, A., & Ziebland, S. (2002). Prostate cancer: Embodied experience and perceptions of masculinity. Sociology of Health and Illness, 24, 820–841.
   Google Scholar
• Cohen, M. (2002). Introduction to qualitative research. In G. LoBiondo-Wood, & J. Haber (Eds.), Nursing research; methods, critical appraisal and utilization (pp. 125–137). St. Louis: Mosby.
   Google Scholar
• Crapp, G. (1998). You have prostate cancer. In T. Laws (Ed.). Promoting men’s health: An essential book for nurses (pp. 193–200). Melbourne: Ausmed.
   Google Scholar
• Crowe, H., & Costello, A. (2003). Prostate cancer: Perspectives on quality of life and impact of treatment on patients and their partners. Urologic Nursing, 23(4), 279–285.
   Google Scholar
• Davis, J., Kuban, D., Lynch, D., & Schellhammer, P. (2001). Quality of life after treatment for localized prostate cancer. Differences based on treatment modality. Journal of Urology, 166, 947–952.
   Google Scholar
• DeFrank, J. T., Mehta, C. C., Stein, K. D., & Baker, F. (2007). Body image dissatisfaction in cancer survivors. Oncology Nursing Forum, 34 (3), E36–E41.
   Google Scholar
• Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (2000). Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Department of Human Services (2008). Victorian government cancer initiative: Patient management frameworks; state government of Victoria. Victoria, Australia: Department of Human Services.
   Google Scholar
• Drummond, M. (2002). Men, body image and eating disorders. International Journal of Men’s Health, 1, 79–93.
   Google Scholar
• Drummond, M., Laws, T., & Polijak-Fligic, J. (2001). Knowledge of and attitudes towards prostate cancer among Italo-Australian men. Australian Journal of Primary Health, 7(3), 9–16.
   Google Scholar
• Elmberger, E., Bolund, C., & Lutzen, K. (2002). Men with cancer: Changes in attempts to master the self-image as a man and as a parent. Cancer Nursing, 25(6), 477–485.
   Google Scholar
• Fossey, E., Harvey, C., McDermott, F., & Davidson, L. (2002). Understanding and evaluating qualitative research. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry 36, 717–732.
   Google Scholar
• Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays. New York: Basic Books.
   Google Scholar
• Gheiler, E. L., Lovisolo, J. A., Tiguert, R., Tefilli, M. V., Grayson, T., Oldford, G., et al. (1999). Results of a clinical care pathway for radical prostatectomy patients in an open hospital – multiphysician system. European Urology, 35(3), 210–216.
   Google Scholar
• Goss, G. (1998). Focus group interviews: A methodology for socially sensitive research. Clinical Excellence for Nurse Practitioners, (2), 30–34.
   Google Scholar
• Harden, J., Schafenacker, A., Northouse, L., Mood, D., Smit, D., Pienta, K., et al. (2002). Couples’ Experiences with prostate cancer: Focus group research. Oncology Nursing Forum, 29(4), 701–709.
   Google Scholar
• Helgeson, V. S., & Leporei, S. J. (2004). Quality of life following prostate cancer: The role of agency and unmitigated agency. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34, 2559–2585.
   Google Scholar
• Hu, J. C., Wang, Q., Pashos, C. L., Lipsitz, S. R., & Keating, N. L. (2008). Utilization and outcomes of minimally invasive radical prostatectomy. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 26(14), 2278–2284.
   Google Scholar
• Kelly, D. (2004). Male sexuality in theory and practice. Nursing Clinics of North America, 39(2), 341–356.
   Google Scholar
• Kitzinger, J. (1994). The methodology of focus groups: The importance of interactions between research participants. Sociology of Health and Illness, 16, 103–121.
   Google Scholar
• Kitzinger, J. (1996). Introducing focus groups. In N. Mays & C. Pope (Eds.), Qualitative research in health care (Vol. 16, pp. 103–121). London: BMJ.
   Google Scholar
• Krane, R. J. (2000). Urinary incontinence after treatment for localized prostate cancer. Molecular Urology, 4, 279–286.
   Google Scholar
• Krueger, R. (1994). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Laws, T., Drummond, M., & Polijak-Fligic, J. (2000). On what basis do Australian men make informed decisions about diagnostic and treatment options for prostate cancer. Australian Journal of Primary Health, 6(2), 87–93.
   Google Scholar
• Laws, T. A., & Drummond, M. (2002). The complexities of interviewing Italo-Australian men. Contemporary Nurse, 12(2), 144–154.
   Google Scholar
• Lim, A., Brandon, A., Fiedler, J., Brickman, A., Boyer, C., Raub, W., et al. (1995). Quality of life: Radical prostatectomy versus radiation therapy for prostate cancer. Journal of Urology, 154, 1420–1425.
   Google Scholar
• MacDougall, C., & Fudge, E. (2001). Planning and recruiting the sample for focus groups and in-depth interviews. Qualitative Health Research, 11, 117–126.
   Google Scholar
• Milne, J., Spiersb, J., & Moore, K. (2008). Men’s experiences following laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: A qualitative descriptive study. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 45, 765–774.
   Google Scholar
• Moore, K., & Estey, A. (1999). The early post-operative concerns of men after radical prostatectomy. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 29(5), 1121–1129.
   Google Scholar
• Morgan, D. (1996). Focus groups. Annual Review of Sociology, 22, 129–152.
   Google Scholar
• Morse, J. M. (1994). Designing Funded Qualitative Research. In N K Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.). Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Moul, J. W. (2009). Post-radical prostatectomy management options for positive surgical margins: Argument for observation. Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations, 27, 92–96.
   Google Scholar
• National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) (2002). Human research ethics handbook (pp. 1–426). Commonwealth of Australia.
   Google Scholar
• Nelson, B., Kaufman, M., Broughton, G., Cookson, S., Chang, S., Herrell, R., et al. (2007). Comparison of length of hospital stay between radical retropubic prostatectomy and robotic assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. The Journal of Urology, 177, 929.
   Google Scholar
• Oliffe, J. L. (2004). Constructions of masculinity following prostatectomy-induced impotence. Social Science and Medicine, 60, 2249–2259.
   Google Scholar
• Parker, A., & Tritter, J. (2006). Focus group method and methodology: Current practice and recent debate. International Journal of Research and Method in Education, 29(1), 23–37.
   Google Scholar
• Parkin, D. M., Bray, F., Ferlay, J., & Pisani, P. (2005). Global cancer statistics, 2002. CA Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 55(2), 74–108.
   Google Scholar
• Patel, V. R., Shah, K., Palmer, K. J., Thaly, R., & Coughlin, G. (2007). Robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: A report of the current state. Expert Review of Anticancer Therapy, 7(9), 1269–1278 (Review).
   Google Scholar
• Patton, M. (1987). How to use qualitative methods in evaluation. Newbury Park: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Patton, M. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. 3rd Edition. Newbury Park: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Pirl, W. F., Siegel, G. I., Goode, M. J., & Smith, M. R. (2002). Depression in men receiving androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer: A pilot study. Psychooncology, 11, 518–523.
   Google Scholar
• Ponterotto, J. (2006). Brief notes on the origin, evolution and meaning of the qualitative research concept ‘thick description’. Qualitative Report, 11(3), 538–549.
   Google Scholar
• Pope, C., & Mays, N. (Eds.). (1999). Qualitative research in health care (2nd ed.). London: BMJ. Retrieved November 16, 2009 from http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/320/7227/114?…/200.
   Google Scholar
• Powel, L. L., & Clark, J. A. (2005). The value of the marginalia as an adjunct to structured questionnaires: Experiences of men after prostate cancer surgery. Quality of Life Research, 14, 827–835.
   Google Scholar
• Quinn, D., Henshall, S., Haynes, A., Brenner, P., Kooner, R., Golovsky, D., et al. (2001). Prognostic significance of pathologic features in localized prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy: Implications for staging systems and predictive models. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 19(6), 3692–3705.
   Google Scholar
• Rice, P. L., & Ezzy, D. (1999). Qualitative research methods, a health focus. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Richards, H., & Schwartz, L. (2002). Ethics of qualitative research: Are there special issues for health services research. Family Practice, 19, 135–139.
   Google Scholar
• Robinson, N. (1999). The use of focus group methodology with selected samples from sexual health research. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 29(4), 905–913.
   Google Scholar
• Roesch, S., Adams, L., Hines, A., Palmores, A., Vyas, P., Tran, C., et al. (2005). Coping with prostate cancer: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Behavioural Medicine, 8(3), 281–293.
   Google Scholar
• Sandelowski, M. (1998). Writing a good read: Strategies for re-presenting qualitative data. Research in Nursing & Health, 21, 375–382.
   Google Scholar
• Sandelowski, M. (2000). Focus on research methods; whatever happened to qualitative description. Research in Nursing and Health, 23, 334–340.
   Google Scholar
• Sharpley, C., & Christie, D. (2007). An analysis of the psychometric profile and frequency of anxiety and depression in Australian men with prostate cancer. Psycho-Oncology, 16, 660–667.
   Google Scholar
• Smith, J., Braunack-Mayer, A., & Wittert, G. (2006). What do we know about men’s help-seeking and health service use? Medical Journal of Australia, 184(2), 81–83.
   Google Scholar
• Smith, T. J., & Hillner, B. E. (2001). Ensuring quality cancer care by the use of clinical practice guidelines and critical pathways. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 19, 2886–2897.
   Google Scholar
• Smithson, J. (2000). Using and analysing focus groups: Limitations and possibilities. International Journal of Social Research Methodology: Theory and Practice, 3(2), 103–121.
   Google Scholar
• Stanford, J. I., Feng, Z., Hamilton, A. S., Gilliland, F. D., Stephenson, R. A., Eley, J. W., et al. (2000). Urinary and sexual function after radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer: The prostate cancer outcomes study. Journal of the American Medical Association, 283, 354–360.
   Google Scholar
• Steginga, S., Turner, E., & Donovan, J. (2008). The decision-related psychosocial concerns of men with localized prostate cancer: Targets for intervention and research. World Journal of Urology, 26(5), 469–474.
   Google Scholar
• Steidle, C. P., Stecher, V. J., Pace, C., & Tseng, L. J. (2006). Correlation of improved erectile function and rate of successful intercourse with improved emotional well-being assessed with the Self-Esteem and Relationship questionnaire in men treated with sildenafil for erectile dysfunction and stratified by age. Current Medical Research and Opinion, 22, 939–948.
   Google Scholar
• Steineck, G., Helgesen, F., Adolfsson, J., Dickman, P. W., Johansson, J.-E., Norlen, B. J., et al. (2002). Quality of life after radical prostatectomy or watchful waiting. New England Journal of Medicine, 347(11), 790–796.
   Google Scholar
• Stewart, D. W., & Shamdasani, P. N. (1990). Focus groups: Theory and practice. Newbury Park: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research; techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Sugarman, J., McCrory, D. C., & Hubal, R. C. (1998). Getting meaningful informed consent from older persons: A structured literature review of empirical research. Journal of American Geriatrics Society, 46, 517–524.
   Google Scholar
• Tewari, A. K., Jhaveri, J. K., Surasi, K., Patel, N., & Tan, G. Y. (2008). Benefit of robotic assistance in comparing outcomes of minimally invasive versus open radical prostatectomy. Journal Clinical Oncology, 26(30), 4999–5000.
   Google Scholar
• Tuckett, A. (2004). Qualitative research sampling: The very real complexities. Nurse Researcher, 12(1), 47–61.
   Google Scholar
• Wall, D., & Kristjanson, L. (2005). Men, culture and hegemonic masculinity: Understanding the experience of prostate cancer. Nursing Inquiry, 12(2), 87–97.
   Google Scholar