The Impact of Dyadic Social Support on Self-Efficacy and Depression After Radical Prostatectomy

Weber, Bryan A.; Roberts, Bryan R.; Yarandi, Hossein; Mills, Terry; Chumbler, Neale R.; Wajsman, Zev

doi:10.1177/0898264307300979

Cited by 62 publications

(73 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…91 Males with prostate cancer were the most frequently studied male-only population (n = 15) included in this review. 48,49,52,58,59,61,64-66, 68,69,72,78,80,89 Other disease areas included hypertension (n = 6), 47,71,79,82,83,85,86 COPD (n = 6), 54,55,[73][74][75][76]81,84,87,88 heart failure (n = 4), 62,67,90,91 type 2 diabetes (n = 3), 46,50,51,70 diabetes of unspecified type (n = 1), 56 arthritis (n = 1) 63 and testicular cancer (n = 1). 77 One multimorbidity study recruited obese men with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease.…”

Section: Setting and Samplementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Three male-only studies 53,68,69 and one mixed-sex study 156 reported self-efficacy outcomes which could be used for meta-analysis. Table 26 reports the effect sizes for each group.…”

Section: Self-efficacy: Positive Scores Indicate Better Statusmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…3 NO. 34 In terms of setting, interventions were reported to be home-based (n = 11), 46,52,60,61,65,67,75,76,78 at a non-home location such as a dedicated gym, pharmacy, hospital clinic, work, university laboratory, coffee shop or other community-based venue (n = 12), [53][54][55][62][63][64][68][69][70]77,85,86,90 a combination of home and non-home-based venue (n = 14) [48][49][50][51]56,57,[72][73][74][79][80][81][82][83][84]87,88 or not clearly reported in the publication (n = 14). 47,58,59,66,71,89,91 Half of the studies [79][80][81][82]46,[48][49]…”

Section: 56mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…49,56,[72][73][74]80,81,87,88 It was unclear what approach was used in two studies. 57,63 Over half of the interventions lasted 0-5 months (n = 28), 47,53,[58][59][60][61][62][63][64][67][68][69][71][72][73][74][75][76][77][78][79][80]85,86 12 interventions ranged between 6 and 11 months, 46,52,[54][55][56][57]66,70,84,90,91 six interventions were 12 months or longer 49,65,81,82,84,87,88 and in five cases the total programme duration was unclear. 48,…”

Section: Self-management Support Interventionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

A systematic review and metaethnography to identify how effective, cost-effective, accessible and acceptable self-management support interventions are for men with long-term conditions (SELF-MAN)

Galdas

Darwin

Fell

et al. 2015

Health Serv Deliv Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Health Services and Delivery ResearchISSN 2050-4349 (Print) ISSN 2050-4357 (Online) This journal is a member of and subscribes to the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (www.publicationethics.org/).Editorial contact: nihredit@southampton.ac.ukThe full HS&DR archive is freely available to view online at www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk/hsdr. Print-on-demand copies can be purchased from the report pages of the NIHR Journals Library website: www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk Criteria for inclusion in the Health Services and Delivery Research journalReports are published in Health Services and Delivery Research (HS&DR) if (1) they have resulted from work for the HS&DR programme or programmes which preceded the HS&DR programme, and (2) they are of a sufficiently high scientific quality as assessed by the reviewers and editors. HS&DR programmeThe Health Services and Delivery Research (HS&DR) programme, part of the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), was established to fund a broad range of research. It combines the strengths and contributions of two previous NIHR research programmes: the Health Services Research (HSR) programme and the Service Delivery and Organisation (SDO) programme, which were merged in January 2012.The HS&DR programme aims to produce rigorous and relevant evidence on the quality, access and organisation of health services including costs and outcomes, as well as research on implementation. The programme will enhance the strategic focus on research that matters to the NHS and is keen to support ambitious evaluative research to improve health services.For more information about the HS&DR programme please visit the website: http://www.nets.nihr.ac.uk/programmes/hsdr This reportThe research reported in this issue of the journal was funded by the HS&DR programme or one of its preceding programmes as project number 12/5001/14. The contractual start date was in June 2013. The final report began editorial review in June 2014 and was accepted for publication in December 2014. The authors have been wholly responsible for all data collection, analysis and interpretation, and for writing up their work. The HS&DR editors and production house have tried to ensure the accuracy of the authors' report and would like to thank the reviewers for their constructive comments on the final report document. However, they do not accept liability for damages or losses arising from material published in this report.This report presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). The views and opinions expressed by authors in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the NHS, the NIHR, NETSCC, the HS&DR programme or the Department of Health. If there are verbatim quotations included in this publication the views and opinions expressed by the interviewees are those of the interviewees and do not necessarily reflect those of the authors, those of the NHS, the NIHR, NETSCC, the HS&DR programme or the Department of Health....

show abstract

Section: Setting and Samplementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Three male-only studies 53,68,69 and one mixed-sex study 156 reported self-efficacy outcomes which could be used for meta-analysis. Table 26 reports the effect sizes for each group.…”

Section: Self-efficacy: Positive Scores Indicate Better Statusmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: 56mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Self-management Support Interventionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A systematic review and metaethnography to identify how effective, cost-effective, accessible and acceptable self-management support interventions are for men with long-term conditions (SELF-MAN)

Galdas

Darwin

Fell

et al. 2015

Health Serv Deliv Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There is evidence of improved psychological wellbeing for the recipients of such support [2][3][4], however, findings are inconsistent. It may be that individual characteristics determine who benefits from peer support, and these individual variations may be lost in aggregated data.…”

mentioning

confidence: 86%

Toward structured peer support interventions in oncology: a qualitative insight into the experiences of gynaecological cancer survivors providing peer support

Huntingdon

Schofield

Wolfowicz

et al. 2015

Support Care Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The effectiveness of psychosocial interventions for men with prostate cancer: a systematic review

Parahoo

McCaughan²,

Noyes

et al. 2010

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Impact of Dyadic Social Support on Self-Efficacy and Depression After Radical Prostatectomy

Abstract: Findings confirm pilot study results and are theoretically consistent with the self-efficacy enhancing nature of vicarious experience described by Bandura in self-efficacy theory.

Cited by 62 publications

References 40 publications

A systematic review and metaethnography to identify how effective, cost-effective, accessible and acceptable self-management support interventions are for men with long-term conditions (SELF-MAN)

A systematic review and metaethnography to identify how effective, cost-effective, accessible and acceptable self-management support interventions are for men with long-term conditions (SELF-MAN)

Toward structured peer support interventions in oncology: a qualitative insight into the experiences of gynaecological cancer survivors providing peer support

The effectiveness of psychosocial interventions for men with prostate cancer: a systematic review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About