Uncategorized

Gay dating cancer

Introduction

Listing a study does not mean it has been evaluated by the U. Federal Government. Know the risks and potential benefits of clinical studies and talk to your health care provider before participating. Read our disclaimer for details.

Aquarius Dating Cancer

NCT Recruitment Status: Recruiting First Posted: November 17, Last Update Posted: January 23, See Contacts and Locations. Study Description. Development and evaluation of an online intervention addressing sexual functioning in MSM after prostate cancer treatment. MedlinePlus related topics: FDA Resources. Arms and Interventions. Intervention Evaluation Control Group Surveys at 3 month intervals. We will evaluate the effects of an educational, tailored, online rehabilitation program addressing sexual and urinary outcomes after treatment by surveying at 3 month intervals.

Multi-component, structured, biopsychosocial, online interactive program to address the sexual and urinary effects of prostate cancer treatment. Outcome Measures. Primary Outcome Measures: Eligibility Criteria. Information from the National Library of Medicine Choosing to participate in a study is an important personal decision. No Criteria. Inclusion Criteria: Gay or Bisexual Men, defined as a biological adult male, who by self-report, has had sex with a man.

Treated for prostate cancer, defined as i having been diagnosed with prostate cancer and measured by being able to report a Prostate- Specific Antigen and Gleason score; and ii treated by radical prostatectomy, radiation or systemically.

Gay Men Answer Dating, Relationship, and Marriage Questions

This is measured by a screener item s asking the enrollee to describe their current function last 4 weeks and validated by nurse interview. Living in the US including territories as measured by valid US zip code. A unique, validated individual, as measured by our published de-duplication and cross-validation protocols, and confirmed by video or phone interview.

Aquarius Dating Cancer

Exclusion Criteria: No Nerve Sparing and Salvage therapy. Medical contraindications as determined by investigators at screening. Heavy smoking: Heavy alcohol use: Cognitive impairment. Contacts and Locations. Information from the National Library of Medicine To learn more about this study, you or your doctor may contact the study research staff using the contact information provided by the sponsor. Please refer to this study by its ClinicalTrials. Layout table for location contacts Contact: Chris J Hoefer hoefer umn. Gudrun Kilian kilian umn. Layout table for investigator information Principal Investigator: More Information.

Caregiving and Social Support for Gay and Bisexual Men with Prostate Cancer

Layout table for additonal information Responsible Party: January 23, Last Verified: Plan to Share IPD: No Layout table for additional information Studies a U. FDA-regulated Drug Product: No Studies a U. FDA-regulated Device Product: Erectile Dysfunction. National Library of Medicine U. National Institutes of Health U.

Department of Health and Human Services. The safety and scientific validity of this study is the responsibility of the study sponsor and investigators. Recruitment Status: November 17, Last Update Posted: January 23, See Contacts and Locations. A number of men reported engaging with both- online and in-person- support groups during this phase of their prostate cancer experience. Many of them reported receiving informational support about different treatment types and their side effects.

I joined immediately and I learned most of what I know from them…. Some men also reported talking with people in their support network, mostly friends, during this phase of their prostate cancer treatment. Some of this was emotional support, whereas for other men this was specifically informational and instrumental, as they were talking with others who had experience with prostate cancer. He was very helpful. Help from others in their social networks ranged from very involved to uninvolved.

Notably, those men in relationships reported a range of involvement in treatment decision making i. Some men reported that their partners were not really involved in making these treatment decisions: During treatment, men undertaking radiation and other treatments reported little instrumental support and less than to men with surgery.

Notably, a number of men with radiation and other treatment took themselves to treatment appointments. Indeed, there was a theme of independence that emerged mostly from the men with radiation and other treatments about the kinds of support they had during treatment.

Coming home from the hospital, I just had a friend come and accompany me in the taxi to come home. Five days. In contrast to the men who undertook radiation and other therapies, men who had radical prostatectomies reported needing and receiving more instrumental support immediately before, and especially in the first days to weeks after returning home from surgery, such as cooking food, running errands, transportation, and cleaning wounds.

I was lucky I had a sister who was a nurse who came to stay with me for a few days and we talked quite a bit about it. He would come over at will. He would even come over in the middle of the night to make sure I was okay. Most of the partnered men who had surgery got instrumental caregiving from their partners.

The single man and cancer

Indeed, GBMPCa raised having a catheter in as a barrier that impeded asking for instrumental support after surgery. Another predominant theme, particularly among single men, was of independence or being solitary.


  1. The LGBT Community and Prostate Cancer | ZERO - The End of Prostate Cancer!
  2. Cancer, Sex, and Single Men.
  3. Gay and Bisexual Men Living with Prostate Cancer;

This independence theme referred to people either not asking for or turning down help, whereas being solitary reflected more comprehensive social isolation. A number of men with surgery reported simply being home alone, most were not explicit about whether they needed more support than what they were getting.

I live alone and when I came home, the first day that I was there, my best friend and a couple of other friends came over and made sure that I was comfortable and situated in the house. After that and from that point on, I just did it myself. My family is in [Midwestern state], so my brother came down, which was nice, for the day of surgery, but my good friend just basically dropped me off at the hospital. Then for the rest of the week, I was by myself.


  1. gay dating sites for 13 year olds.
  2. Prostate Cancer in Gay, Bisexual, and Other Men Who Have Sex with Men: A Review.
  3. escort gay grand canyon?
  4. Prostate Cancer in Gay, Bisexual, and Other Men Who Have Sex with Men: A Review?
  5. adam4adam radar gay?
  6. gay bdsm escort utah.

This is in contrast to the tone among men who had radiation and those who underwent other treatments. Both groups either had support available but reported not needing it or felt like support was unavailable and seeking support from outside their family. My big brother…helped me out some. I had pretty much done everything on my own. I have a paid caregiver who comes in four days a week, four and a half hours a day.

Notably, the instrumental support single GBMPCa did receive came largely from friends, family and paid caregivers. Emotional support represented the next most common component of social support during treatment. After treatment, the primary type of support men reported wa s informational and emotional support about sexual rehabilitation. Other men mentioned a transition from needing and using support — informational and emotional — to providing this support by remaining active in prostate cancer support groups.

For the support GBMPCa needed after treatment, men were selective as to whom they talked to regarding sexual side effects. Some confided in partners, others to friends or other social support groups, but generally less on family. A distinct minority of men noted helpful friends and sympathetic partners. And I thought well, this is it. Many men, especially single men reported not having much instrumental support throughout recovery. Of those who had support, their social support network consisted largely of friends, parents and siblings.

Second, the social support GBMPCa report receiving varied across the domain of social support and differed between the time of diagnosis and during treatment. Although our goal was not to sample stratified by race or sexual orientation, we caution saturation was not reached across race or sexual orientation and have not made explicit comparisons of differences in by these factors.

Moreover, we note that our study design does not facilitate direct comparisons to the dominant literature of men in heterosexual relationships; however, we speculate and show how our work fits within the findings of this previous work. Not all interviews explored the experiences of social support to the same depth, which resulted in some sparsity in the data; this is particularly true of emotional support, as that domain was not explicitly focused on in interviews. Phone interviews also may have limited the emotional depth of the interview compared to in-person interviews where establishing rapport is easier.

We recruited from one online forum; results may have differed if recruitment were in person or from multiple online venues. These weaknesses notwithstanding, this study has many strengths. As the first published study of support persons, it breaks new ground.

With 30 interviews, it is the largest qualitative study of social support for GBMPCa to date, and the first with sufficient subgroups of men who underwent surgery, radiation, or other treatment to enable comparative analysis. The provision of support by parents, siblings and friends contrasted with the existing literature of social support for men with prostate cancer. Much of the qualitative studies of support for men with prostate cancer focus on spouses, the vast majority of whom are wives.