Emotion-centered versus fact-centered medical information to alleviate pain and anxiety in prostate biopsy: A randomized trial.
MRI
anxiety
medical information
narrative
pain
prostate biopsy
Journal
The Prostate
ISSN: 1097-0045
Titre abrégé: Prostate
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8101368
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
20 Dec 2023
20 Dec 2023
Historique:
revised:
10
10
2023
received:
19
07
2023
accepted:
05
12
2023
medline:
20
12
2023
pubmed:
20
12
2023
entrez:
20
12
2023
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
To test the efficacy of emotion-centered (EC) versus fact-centered (FC) written medical information for prostate biopsy to alleviate pain and anxiety in a randomized controlled trial. In a single-center, single-blinded study participants were randomized to receive FC or EC (DRKS00022361; 2020). In the EC, the focus was on possible stress reactions and stress-reducing strategies. Participants were asked to complete questionnaires on the day of MRI acquisition (T0) directly before (T1) and after the procedure (T2). The primary outcome measure was the assessment of worst pain in the last 2 h measured by the adapted brief pain inventory. Secondary outcome measures included state anxiety measured by the state-trait anxiety inventory and the subjective evaluation of the impact of the written medical information at T2. For statistical analysis, mixed models were calculated. Of 137 eligible patients, 108 (79%) could be recruited and were randomized. There was a significant effect for time for the outcome variables pain and anxiety. Regarding the comparison for the primary outcome variable worst pain there was a significantly lower increase from T1 to T2 after FC compared to EC (p < 0.004). The course of anxiety displayed no overall group differences. The FC was evaluated as significantly more helpful regarding stress, pain, and anxiety with moderate effect sizes. FC was favorable with regard to worst experienced pain, assuming that the brief introduction of emotional issues such as stress and coping in written information might be counterproductive particularly in men not used to these subjects.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
To test the efficacy of emotion-centered (EC) versus fact-centered (FC) written medical information for prostate biopsy to alleviate pain and anxiety in a randomized controlled trial.
METHODS
METHODS
In a single-center, single-blinded study participants were randomized to receive FC or EC (DRKS00022361; 2020). In the EC, the focus was on possible stress reactions and stress-reducing strategies. Participants were asked to complete questionnaires on the day of MRI acquisition (T0) directly before (T1) and after the procedure (T2). The primary outcome measure was the assessment of worst pain in the last 2 h measured by the adapted brief pain inventory. Secondary outcome measures included state anxiety measured by the state-trait anxiety inventory and the subjective evaluation of the impact of the written medical information at T2. For statistical analysis, mixed models were calculated.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Of 137 eligible patients, 108 (79%) could be recruited and were randomized. There was a significant effect for time for the outcome variables pain and anxiety. Regarding the comparison for the primary outcome variable worst pain there was a significantly lower increase from T1 to T2 after FC compared to EC (p < 0.004). The course of anxiety displayed no overall group differences. The FC was evaluated as significantly more helpful regarding stress, pain, and anxiety with moderate effect sizes.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
FC was favorable with regard to worst experienced pain, assuming that the brief introduction of emotional issues such as stress and coping in written information might be counterproductive particularly in men not used to these subjects.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© 2023 The Authors. The Prostate published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.
Références
Gandaglia G, Leni R, Bray F, et al. Epidemiology and prevention of prostate cancer. Eur Urol Oncol. 2021;4(6):877-892. doi:10.1016/j.euo.2021.09.006
Devetzis K, Kum F, Popert R, et al. Recent advances in systematic and targeted prostate biopsies. Res Rep Urol. 2021;13:799-809.
Ilic D, Neuberger MM, Djulbegovic M, Dahm P. Screening for prostate cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;2013(1):CD004720.
Loeb S, van den Heuvel S, Zhu X, Bangma CH, Schröder FH, Roobol MJ. Infectious complications and hospital admissions after prostate biopsy in a European randomized trial. Eur Urol. 2012;61(6):1110-1114.
Groarke A, Curtis R, Walsh DMJ, Sullivan FJ. What predicts emotional response in men awaiting prostate biopsy? BMC Urol. 2018; 18:27.
Lazarus RS, Folkman S, et al. Stress Appraisal and Coping. Springer Publishing Company, Inc.; 1984. http://www.dawsonera.com/depp/reader/protected/external/AbstractView/S9780826141927
Bandura A. Exercise of personal agency through the self-efficacy mechanism. In: Schwarzer R, ed. Self-efficacy: Thought Control of Action. Hemisphere Publishing Corp; 1992:S3-S38.
Zisman A, Leibovici D, Kleinmann J, SIegel YI, Lindner A. The impact of prostate biopsy on patient well-being: a prospective study of pain, anxiety and erectile dysfunction. J Urol. 2001;165(2):445-454.
Awsare NS, Green JSA, Aldwinckle B, Hanbury DC, Boustead GB, McNicholas TA. The measurement of psychological distress in men being investigated for the presence of prostate cancer. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2008;11(4):384-389.
Saraçoğlu T, Unsal A, Taşkın F, et al. The impact of pre-procedural waiting period and anxiety level on pain perception in patients undergoing transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy. Diagn Interv Radiol Ank Turk. 2012;18(2):195-199.
Macefield RC, Metcalfe C, Lane JA, et al. Impact of prostate cancer testing: an evaluation of the emotional consequences of a negative biopsy result. Br J Cancer. 2010; 102(9):1335-1340.
Wade J, Rosario DJ, Macefield RC, et al. Psychological impact of prostate biopsy: physical symptoms, anxiety, and depression. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(33):4235-4241.
Tekdogan U, Tuncel A, Nalcacioglu V, Kisa C, Aslan Y, Atan A. Is the pain level of patients affected by anxiety during transrectal prostate needle biopsy? Scand J Urol Nephrol. 2008;42(1):24-28.
Appleton L, Wyatt D, Perkins E, et al. The impact of prostate cancer on men's everyday life: the impact of prostate cancer on men's everyday life. Eur J Cancer Care. 2015;24(1):71-84.
Freeman D, Loe BS, Yu LM, et al. Effects of different types of written vaccination information on COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in the UK (OCEANS-III): a single-blind, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Public Health. 2021; 6(6):e416-e427.
O'Sullivan JW, Harvey RT, Glasziou PP, et al. Written information for patients (or parents of child patients) to reduce the use of antibiotics for acute upper respiratory tract infections in primary care. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;2016(11):CD011360.
Lai YL, Van Heuven A, Borire A, et al. The provision of written information and its effect on levels of pain and anxiety during electrodiagnostic studies: a randomised controlled trial. PLoS One. 2018;13(5):e0196917.
Radbruch L, Loick G, Kiencke P, et al. Validation of the German version of the brief pain inventory. J Pain Symptom Manage. 1999;18(3):180-187.
Spielberger CD. State-trait anxiety inventory. In Weiner IB, Craighead WE, eds. The Corsini Encyclopedia of Psychology, 4th ed. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2010:1698-1699.
Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers; 1988.
Chakraborty H, Gu H. A Mixed Model Approach for Intent-to-Treat Analysis in Longitudinal Clinical Trials with Missing Values. RTI Press (RTI Press Methods Report Series); 2009.
Pereira L, Figueiredo-Braga M, Carvalho IP, et al. Preoperative anxiety in ambulatory surgery: the impact of an empathic patient-centered approach on psychological and clinical outcomes. Patient Educ Couns. 2016;99(5):733-738.
Oliveira P, Porfírio C, Pires R, et al. Psychoeducation programs to reduce preoperative anxiety in adults: a scoping review. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;20(1):327.
Fauchon C, Faillenot I, Perrin AM, et al. Does an observer's empathy influence my pain? effect of perceived empathetic or unempathetic support on a pain test. Eur J Neurosci. 2017;46(10):2629-2637.
Kent S, Devonport TJ, Lane AM, Nicholls W, Friesen AP. The effects of coping interventions on ability to perform under pressure. J Sports Sci Med. 2018;17(1):40-55.
Shahmansouri N, Janghorbani M, Salehi Omran A, et al. Effects of a psychoeducation intervention on fear and anxiety about surgery: randomized trial in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting. Psychol Health Med. 2014;19(4):375-383. doi:10.1080/13548506.2013.841966
Schupp CJ, Berbaum K, Berbaum M, Lang EV. Pain and anxiety during interventional radiologic procedures: effect of patients' state anxiety at baseline and modulation by nonpharmacologic analgesia adjuncts. J Vasc Intervent Radiol. 2005;16(12):1585-1592.
Grinberg AS, Sellinger JJ, Sprenkle PC, et al. Effect of diaphragmatic breathing on procedural anxiety during transrectal prostate biopsy. Urology. 2020;137:26-32.
Shakeri M, Tolyat M, Taherirad M, Pirannezhad R. Study the effect of planned and writing training on the anxiety of patients undergoing orthopedic surgery. Biomed Pharmacol J. 2015;8:125-130. doi:10.13005/bpj/568
Wester SR, Vogel DL, Pressly PK, Heesacker M. Sex differences in emotion: a critical review of the literature and implications for counseling psychology. Couns Psychol. 2002;30(4):630-652.
Jansz J. Masculine identity and restrictive emotionality. In: Fischer AH, ed. Gender and Emotion: Social Psychological Perspectives. Cambridge University Press; 2000:166-186. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/gender-and-emotion/masculine-identity-and-restrictive-emotionality/11980E206774151367F956E20947EC20
Robins D, Lipsky M, RoyChoudry A, Wenske S. Assessment of discomfort and pain in patients undergoing fusion magnetic resonance imaging-guided vs TRUS-guided prostate biopsy. Urology. 2018;116:30-34. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2018.02.029