MP27-14 A CROSS-SECTIONAL COMPARISON STUDY OF SELF-HELP FOR PROSTATE CANCER: HOW DO ONLINE AND FACE-TO-FACE SUPPORT GROUPS DIFFER?

Abstract

You have accessJournal of UrologyGeneral & Epidemiological Trends & Socioeconomics: Quality of Life1 Apr 2015MP27-14 A CROSS-SECTIONAL COMPARISON STUDY OF SELF-HELP FOR PROSTATE CANCER: HOW DO ONLINE AND FACE-TO-FACE SUPPORT GROUPS DIFFER? Johannes Huber, Tanja Muck, Philipp Maatz, Anette Brechtel, and Andreas Ihrig Johannes HuberJohannes Huber More articles by this author , Tanja MuckTanja Muck More articles by this author , Philipp MaatzPhilipp Maatz More articles by this author , Anette BrechtelAnette Brechtel More articles by this author , and Andreas IhrigAndreas Ihrig More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2015.02.1176AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES In addition to traditional face-to-face support groups, online services are becoming increasingly important for patients diagnosed with prostate cancer. To date it is unknown how these two forms of peer-to-peer support compare. METHODS We performed a cross-sectional comparison study of the largest German prostate cancer online support group and the national association of face-to-face support groups in 2013. Applying validated instruments the survey covered socio-demographic and disease-related information, decision-making habits, psychological aspects, and quality of life. We applied Chi2- and T-test; p<0.01 denoted statistical significance. Trial Registration: DRKS00005086. RESULTS The number of participating relatives of patients was higher in the online support group (10% vs. 2%, p<0.001). We analyzed the complete data of 686 patients using online support and of 955 patients visiting face-to-face support groups. Patients using online support were younger (65 vs. 72 years, p<0.001), had higher education levels (high school: 47% vs. 21%, p<0.001), and higher income (>3000 Euro per month: 33% vs. 11%, p<0.001). Patients using online support reported a larger share of metastatic disease (17% vs. 12%, p<0.001). In both groups the proportion of participants from rural areas was about one third. Patients using online support reported higher distress scores, but their depression and anxiety scores were lower. Global quality of life did not differ. In face-to-face groups patients' ratings were better for exchanging information, gaining recognition, and caring for others. Patients using online support demanded a more active role in the treatment decision-making process (58% vs. 33%, p<0.001) and changed their initial treatment decision more frequently (29.2% vs. 25.4%, p<0.001). In this group, more patients opted for radiotherapy (38.8% vs. 28.2%, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS There are significant differences that cannot be explained solely from the age distribution. Online support offers low-threshold advice for acute problems and distress while face-to-face groups provide continuous social backing for long-term mental stress. Both forms of self-help have significant impact on treatment decision-making. Therefore, peer-to-peer support should be touched upon during patient counseling. © 2015 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 193Issue 4SApril 2015Page: e308 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2015 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Johannes Huber More articles by this author Tanja Muck More articles by this author Philipp Maatz More articles by this author Anette Brechtel More articles by this author Andreas Ihrig More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...