Background: Prostate cancer significantly impacts not only the individuals diagnosed but also their partners, who frequently undertake extensive caregiving responsibilities. Despite their crucial role, the experiences and needs of partners remain underrepresented in cancer care literature and policy, particularly in Ireland. Methods: A qualitative descriptive study exploring the lived experiences of nine partners of men with prostate cancer in Ireland was employed. Semi-structured interviews were conducted in person, by phone, or virtually. Data were analysed using Braun and Clarke's thematic analysis, supported by NVivo software, and interpreted through Meleis' Transition Theory. Results: Five major themes emerged: (1) Invisible Needs: Experience in Care, (2) Alone Together: Missing Couple-Centred Support, (3) Knowledge Deficit and Under preparedness, (4) Hesitancy, Silence and Emotional Restraints and (5) The Cost of Caring: Strain, Self-Care and Advocacy. Participants highlighted critical issues of marginalisation, emotional burden, under preparedness, and lack of inclusion for a specific group within a normal conventional care setting, which are precisely the experiences that need to be understood and addressed, not dismissed as representing a minority. Conclusion: Partners of men with prostate cancer, especially those from LGBTQ+ communities, face significant psychosocial challenges that are often overlooked by the healthcare system. Findings underscore the urgent need for inclusive, couple-centred support models and tailored educational interventions. Enhancing caregiver involvement and wellbeing through systemic and policy-level changes could improve outcomes for both patients and their partners. Patient and Public Involvement Statement: Patients and members of the public were not involved in the design or conduct of this research. Although participants contributed their perspectives as part of the qualitative study, there was no formal PPI in shaping the research process. The authors recognise the importance of involving patients and the public in co-designing research and will consider this in future studies.
Mumuni et al. (Tue,) studied this question.