Mediating Effects of Self-Efficacy and Illness Perceptions on Mental Health in Men with Localized Prostate Cancer: A Secondary Analysis of the Prostate Cancer Patient Empowerment Program (PC-PEP) Randomized Controlled Trial
Abstract
Simple Summary This study investigates how the Prostate Cancer Patient Empowerment Program (PC-PEP) helps men with prostate cancer by promoting patient empowerment and activation. This program encourages patients to engage actively in their care, fostering healthy living habits daily, over six months. Involving 128 patients, this research found that those participating in the PC-PEP experienced significant improvements in self-efficacy and emotional responses, leading to reduced psychological distress compared to those receiving standard care. These findings underscore the importance of integrating the PC-PEP into clinical practice to enhance mental health and patient care strategies. Abstract Understanding how interventions reduce psychological distress in patients with prostate cancer is crucial for improving patient care. This study examined the roles of self-efficacy, illness perceptions, and heart rhythm coherence in mediating the effects of the Prostate Cancer Patient Empowerment Program (PC-PEP) on psychological distress compared to standard care. In a randomized controlled trial, 128 patients were assigned to either the PC-PEP intervention or standard care. The PC-PEP, a six-month program emphasizing daily healthy living habits, included relaxation and stress management, diet, exercise, pelvic floor muscle exercises, and strategies to improve relationships and intimacy, with daily activities supported by online resources and live sessions. Participants in the…
How strong is the evidence?
Evidence Hub reads this as a secondary / pooled analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 128 participants or records.
Read the paper
Related studies
- Safety and efficacy of COVID‐19 vaccines: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of controlled and randomized clinical trials
- Accuracy Comparison between Robot-Assisted Dental Implant Placement and Static/Dynamic Computer-Assisted Implant Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of In Vitro Studies
- Determinants of passive antibody efficacy in SARS-CoV-2 infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis
- Cleaning efficacy of EDDY versus ultrasonically-activated irrigation in root canals: a systematic review and meta-analysis
- Bonding Efficacy of Universal Resin Adhesives to Zirconia Substrates: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
- In vitro antimicrobial activity of extracts and essential oils of Cinnamomum, Salvia, and Mentha spp. against foodborne pathogens: A meta-analysis study
Go deeper in Evidence Hub
Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.