Body image issues and attitudes towards exercise amongst men undergoing androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) following diagnosis of prostate cancer

© 2019 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Background: Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is an established treatment for prostate cancer (PCa), but its side-effects can affect body appearance and functioning. However, research into the impact of ADT on body image is limited. Exercise can help patients to counterbalance some side-effects, potentially improving body image too. However, adherence to exercise recommendations is low. Therefore, we explored body image after ADT and attitudes towards exercise. Methods: Twenty two semi-structured interviews were conducted with PCa patients receiving ADT (Mage = 67.9 years old, SD = 9.99). Results: Participants expressed appearance dissatisfaction focusing on body feminization. Participants exercised to counterbalance ADT side-effects and improve mood. Exercise also helped them to re-establish a sense of control over their body and experience a sense of achievement. However, some men described being worried that their appearance and physical performance would be judged by others, so they often exercised alone or gave up exercise. Time management and fatigue were also identified as exercise barriers. Conclusion: These findings highlight the need to further investigate body image concerns and exercise barriers in PCa patients undergoing ADT. These results could also inform support groups and health care professionals on the topic. However, further research should explore the most effective and acceptable ways to provide support to PCa patients on body image issues

The provision of dietary and physical activity advice for men diagnosed with prostate cancer:a qualitative study of the experiences and views of health care professionals, patients and partners

PURPOSE: To explore the views and experiences of health care professionals (HCPs), men diagnosed with localised prostate cancer and their partners about the provision of advice on diet and physical activity after diagnosis and treatment for localised prostate cancer. METHODS: Semi-structured in-depth interviews with ten HCPs (Consultant Urological Surgeons, Uro-Oncology Clinical Nurse Specialists and Allied Health Professionals: see Table 1) and sixteen men diagnosed with localised prostate cancer and seven of their partners. Data from interviews were thematically analysed using the Framework Approach. RESULTS: The men and their partners provided differing accounts to the HCPs and sometimes to each other concerning the provision of advice on diet and physical activity. Some men were unable to recall receiving such advice from HCPs. Factors impacting upon advice-giving included the perceived lack of an evidence base to support dietary and physical activity advice and the credibility of advice providers. The timing of advice provision was a contentious issue as some HCPs believed that patients might not be willing to receive dietary and physical activity advice at the time of diagnosis, whilst others viewed this an opportune time to provide behaviour change information. Patients concurred with the latter opinion. CONCLUSIONS: Men and their partners would value nutritional and physical activity advice from their HCP, after a localised prostate cancer diagnosis. Men would prefer to receive this advice at an early stage in their cancer journey and may implement behaviour change if the received advice is clear and evidence-based. HCPs should receive suitable training regarding what information to provide to men and how best to deliver this information

Acceptability of dietary and physical activity lifestyle modification for men following radiotherapy or radical prostatectomy for localised prostate cancer:a qualitative investigation

Abstract Background The experience and acceptability of lifestyle interventions for men with localised prostate cancer are not well understood, yet lifestyle interventions are increasingly promoted for cancer survivors. We explored the opinions, experiences and perceived acceptability of taking part in nutritional and physical activity interventions amongst men with prostate cancer and their partners; with the ultimate plan to use such information to inform the development of nutritional and physical activity interventions for men with prostate cancer. Methods Semi-structured interviews with 16 men, and seven partners, undergoing curative surgery or radiotherapy for prostate cancer. Interviews explored experiences of lifestyle interventions, acceptable changes participants would make and perceived barriers and facilitators to change. Interviews were thematically analysed using the framework approach. Results Men were frequently open to lifestyle modification and family support was considered vital to facilitate change. Health beneficial, clinician endorsed, understandable, enjoyable interventions were perceived as attractive. Barriers included ‘modern’ digital technology, poor weather, competing commitments or physical limitations, most notably incontinence following radical prostatectomy. Men were keen to participate in research, with few negative aspects identified. Conclusions Men are willing to change behaviour but this needs to be supported by clinicians and health professionals facilitating lifestyle change. An ‘intention-behaviour gap’, when an intended behaviour does not materialise, may exist. Digital technology for data collection and lifestyle measurement may not be suitable for all, and post-surgery urinary incontinence is a barrier to physical activity. These novel findings should be incorporated into lifestyle intervention development, and implemented clinically

The feasibility of the Prostate cancer: Evidence of Exercise and Nutrition Trial (PrEvENT) dietary and physical activity modifications:a qualitative study

BACKGROUND: There is increasing evidence that low levels of physical activity and diets low in fruit and vegetables and high in meat and dairy products are risk factors for prostate cancer disease progression. The Prostate cancer: Evidence of Exercise and Nutrition Trial (PrEvENT) aimed to assess a diet and physical activity intervention in men undergoing radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer. The trial included a qualitative component to explore the experiences of men participating in the trial in order to understand the acceptability of the intervention and data collection methods. We report the qualitative findings of the trial and consider how these can be used to inform future research. METHODS: PrEvENT involved randomizing men to either a dietary and/or physical activity intervention. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of 17 men on completion of the 6 month trial. Interviews took place in clinic or as telephone interviews, if requested by the participant, and were audio recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using the thematic-based framework approach. Analysis was conducted throughout the data collection process to allow emergent themes to be further explored in subsequent interviews. RESULTS: Three overarching themes were identified: acceptability of the intervention, acceptability of the data collection methods and trial logistics. Participants were predominantly positive about both the dietary and physical activity interventions and most men found the methods of data collection appropriate. Recommendations for future trials include consideration of alternative physical activity options, such as cycling or gym sessions, increased information on portion sizes, the potential importance of including wives or partners in the dietary change process and the possibility of using the pedometer or other wearable technology as part of the physical activity intervention. CONCLUSIONS: We provide insight into the opinions and experiences of the acceptability of the PrEvENT diet and physical activity intervention from the participants themselves. The interventions delivered were acceptable to this sample of participants, as were the data collection methods utilized. We also highlight some considerations for further behavioural change interventions in prostate cancer and other similar populations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN, ISRCTN99048944. Registered on 17 November 2014. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-017-1828-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users

Prostate cancer - evidence of exercise and nutrition trial (PrEvENT):Study protocol for a randomised controlled feasibility trial

Background: A growing body of observational evidence suggests that nutritional and physical activity interventions are associated with beneficial outcomes for men with prostate cancer, including brisk walking, lycopene intake, increased fruit and vegetable intake and reduced dairy consumption. However, randomised controlled trial data are limited. The ‘Prostate Cancer: Evidence of Exercise and Nutrition Trial’ investigates the feasibility of recruiting and randomising men diagnosed with localised prostate cancer and eligible for radical prostatectomy to interventions that modify nutrition and physical activity. The primary outcomes are randomisation rates and adherence to the interventions at 6 months following randomisation. The secondary outcomes are intervention tolerability, trial retention, change in prostate specific antigen level, change in diet, change in general physical activity levels, insulin-like growth factor levels, and a range of related outcomes, including quality of life measures. Methods/design: The trial is factorial, randomising men to both a physical activity (brisk walking or control) and nutritional (lycopene supplementation or increased fruit and vegetables with reduced dairy consumption or control) intervention. The trial has two phases: men are enrolled into a cohort study prior to radical prostatectomy, and then consented after radical prostatectomy into a randomised controlled trial. Data are collected at four time points (cohort baseline, true trial baseline and 3 and 6 months post-randomisation). Discussion: The Prostate Cancer: Evidence of Exercise and Nutrition Trial aims to determine whether men with localised prostate cancer who are scheduled for radical prostatectomy can be recruited into a cohort and subsequently randomised to a 6-month nutrition and physical activity intervention trial. If successful, this feasibility trial will inform a larger trial to investigate whether this population will gain clinical benefit from long-term nutritional and physical activity interventions post-surgery. Prostate Cancer: Evidence of Exercise and Nutrition Trial (PrEvENT) is registered on the ISRCTN registry, ref number ISRCTN99048944. Date of registration 17 November 2014.10 page(s

TReatIng Urinary symptoms in Men in Primary Healthcare using non-pharmacological and non-surgical interventions (TRIUMPH) compared with usual care: Study protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial

Background: Lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) can relate to urinary storage or voiding. In men, the prevalence and severity of LUTS increases with age, with a significant impact on quality of life. The majority of men presenting with LUTS are managed by their general practitioner (GP) in the first instance, with conservative therapies recommended as the initial treatment. However, the provision of conservative therapies in primary care is variable and can be time and resource limited. GPs require practical resources to enhance patient engagement with such interventions. TRIUMPH aims to determine whether a standardised and manualised care intervention delivered in primary care achieves superior symptomatic outcome for LUTS versus usual care.Methods/design: TRIUMPH is a two-arm, cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT) being conducted in 30 National Health Service (NHS) general practices in England. The TRIUMPH intervention comprises a standardised LUTS advice booklet developed for the trial with patient and healthcare professional (HCP) consultation. The booklet is delivered to patients by nurses/healthcare assistants following assessment of their urinary symptoms. Patients are directed to relevant sections of the booklet, providing the manualised element of the intervention. To encourage adherence, HCPs provide follow-up contacts over 12 weeks. Practices are randomised 1:1 to either deliver the TRIUMPH intervention or a usual care pathway. The patient-reported International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) at 12 months post consent is the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes include cost-effectiveness, patient-reported outcomes on LUTS, quality of life, and patient and HCP acceptability and experience of the intervention. Primary analyses will be conducted on an intention-to-treat basis.Discussion: It is unclear whether conservative therapies for male LUTS are effectively delivered in primary care using current approaches. This can lead to men being inappropriately referred to secondary care or experiencing persistent symptoms. Primary care, therefore, holds the key to effective treatment for these men. The TRIUMPH intervention, through its standardised and manualised approach, has been developed to support GP practices in delivering effective conservative care. This pragmatic, cluster RCT should provide robust evidence in a primary-care setting to inform future guidelines