Patient Preferences for Psychological Support in Prostate Cancer Care: A Qualitative Interview Study
Author(s)
Io Wens, Master Biomedical Sciences1, Alexander Giesen, Medicine2, Erik Briers, PhD3, Bertrand Tombal, Medicine4, Steven Joniau, Medicine2, Wouter Everaerts, Medicine2, Isabelle Huys, PharmD, PhD5.
1PhD researcher, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium, 2UZ Leuven, Leuven, Belgium, 3Europa Uomo, Brussels, Belgium, 4Saint Luc, Brussels, Belgium, 5KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
1PhD researcher, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium, 2UZ Leuven, Leuven, Belgium, 3Europa Uomo, Brussels, Belgium, 4Saint Luc, Brussels, Belgium, 5KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
OBJECTIVES: Prostate cancer is the most diagnosed cancer in men in Europe, often leading to significant psychological distress. However, access to integrated onco-psychological care remains limited and may not align with patient needs. This study explores patient preferences for psychological support to improve prostate cancer care pathways and enhance patients’ quality of life.
METHODS: Qualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted with Belgian prostate cancer patients (n=12) at various disease stages to assess their preferences regarding the integration of onco-psychological care. Interviews were transcribed and analysed using the thematic framework approach, highlighting both differences and similarities in perspectives.
RESULTS: Patients reported that psychological wellbeing is rarely discussed during consultations. The lack of continuity in care, due to seeing different urologists hindered trust, which patients considered essential for discussing psychological concerns. They emphasized the need for better information and easier access to psychological support. However, opinions varied on whether routine consultations with an onco-psychologist should be systematically integrated. Most patients valued autonomy in deciding whether to seek this type of support, cautioning that mandatory integration could be counterproductive. Instead, they preferred to first discuss their psychological and sexual wellbeing with a more accessible healthcare provider, such as a pathway or care counsellor, during a routine in person consultation after diagnosis or treatment, allowing to address concerns while minimizing hospital visits. Most participants supported involving their partners, yet some feared that their presence might limit open discussions, suggesting partner involvement to be introduced at a later stage. Many recognized the value of group counselling, especially for patients without a partner or family.
CONCLUSIONS: There is no one-size-fits-all approach to addressing the psychological needs of prostate cancer patients. Given diverse patient preferences, psychological care should be tailored to individual needs. Integrating patient perspectives into future care pathways is essential to ensure effective psychological support and improve quality of life.
METHODS: Qualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted with Belgian prostate cancer patients (n=12) at various disease stages to assess their preferences regarding the integration of onco-psychological care. Interviews were transcribed and analysed using the thematic framework approach, highlighting both differences and similarities in perspectives.
RESULTS: Patients reported that psychological wellbeing is rarely discussed during consultations. The lack of continuity in care, due to seeing different urologists hindered trust, which patients considered essential for discussing psychological concerns. They emphasized the need for better information and easier access to psychological support. However, opinions varied on whether routine consultations with an onco-psychologist should be systematically integrated. Most patients valued autonomy in deciding whether to seek this type of support, cautioning that mandatory integration could be counterproductive. Instead, they preferred to first discuss their psychological and sexual wellbeing with a more accessible healthcare provider, such as a pathway or care counsellor, during a routine in person consultation after diagnosis or treatment, allowing to address concerns while minimizing hospital visits. Most participants supported involving their partners, yet some feared that their presence might limit open discussions, suggesting partner involvement to be introduced at a later stage. Many recognized the value of group counselling, especially for patients without a partner or family.
CONCLUSIONS: There is no one-size-fits-all approach to addressing the psychological needs of prostate cancer patients. Given diverse patient preferences, psychological care should be tailored to individual needs. Integrating patient perspectives into future care pathways is essential to ensure effective psychological support and improve quality of life.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2025-11, ISPOR Europe 2025, Glasgow, Scotland
Value in Health, Volume 28, Issue S2
Code
PCR179
Topic
Epidemiology & Public Health, Health Service Delivery & Process of Care, Patient-Centered Research
Disease
No Additional Disease & Conditions/Specialized Treatment Areas, Oncology