article · JU Open Plus
Purpose: Prostate cancer survivors frequently lack access to comprehensive survivorship care, particularly in rural settings. We evaluated whether a digitally delivered, multicomponent survivorship program demonstrated equitable implementation and comparable longitudinal psychosocial outcomes across rural and urban contexts in an international Phase 4 implementation trial. Materials and Methods: This ongoing Phase 4, single-arm, prospective international implementation study evaluated the Prostate Cancer Patient Empowerment Program (PC-PEP), a 6-month, home-based digital intervention. Participants with prostate cancer completed assessments at baseline and 6, 12, and 24 months. Rural vs urban participants were compared on demographics, follow-up, and evaluation metrics. Exploratory longitudinal generalized estimating equation (GEE) models assessed change in psychological distress (K10) and health-related quality of life (SF-12 Mental Component Summary [MCS]), adjusting for covariates, and tested for differential trajectories by rurality. Results: Among 689 participants (urban n = 483; rural n = 206), follow-up completion was similar between groups at 6 months (82.1% vs 77.5%), 12 months (66.5% vs 68.5%), and 24 months (59.9% vs 56.6%). Baseline psychosocial, functional, and symptom outcomes were comparable. Program acceptability was high with ≥ 92% of participants recommending PC-PEP and endorsing that it should be standard care. Rural participants rated pelvic floor muscle training and dietary guidance more favorably. Psychological distress decreased and SF-12 MCS improved over time, with no difference by rurality. Conclusions: PC-PEP demonstrated equitable reach, follow-up, and perceived usefulness across rural and urban settings, alongside sustained improvements in mental health outcomes. These findings support scalable, equity-oriented digital survivorship care for men with prostate cancer.
This page summarises published work. The authoritative version sits with the publisher.
DOI: 10.1097/ju9.0000000000000458
Is something wrong with this record? Report it or request removal.
Discussion
Have you built on this work, tried to replicate it, or seen it applied in practice? Share what you know. Verified researchers and MARATTO™ domain experts can open a discussion, and any member can reply. Contributions are reviewed before they appear.
No discussion yet. Open the first thread.
New to MARATTO™? Create a free account.