Assessing the nutritional needs of men with prostate cancer

Nutrition Journal

Table 1 Patient and partner responses to the nutrition session evaluation

Participant	Response		p-value
Q1. Was the material presented in a clear fashion and easy to understand?
	Yes, N (%)	No, N (%)
Patient	133 (100)	0
Partner	71 (100)	0	–
Patient with partner	71 (100)	0
Patient without partner	39 (100)	0	–
Q2: Is there information you feel that was missed and should be included?
	Yes, N (%)	No, N (%)
Patient	18 (14)	113 (86)
Partner	7 (11)	56 (89)	0.61
Patient with partner	8 (11.3)	63 (88.7)
Patient without partner	8 (21.6)	29 (78.4)	0.15
Q3: Would you prefer the session be longer or shorter?
	Yes, N (%)	No N (%)
Patient	14 (13)	94 (87)
Partner	6 (11)	48 (89)	0.32
Patient with partner	13 (12.4)	92 (87.6)
Patient without partner	5 (14.7)	29 (85.3)	–
Q4: Did/would you find the inclusion of partners and/or family members valuable?
	Yes, N (%)	No, N (%)
Patient	103 (92)	9 (8)
Partner	67 (99)	1 (1)	–
Patient with partner	128 (98.5)	2 (1.5)
Patient without partner	21 (72.4)	8 (27.6)	–
	Mean rating out of 4 (SD)		p-value
Q5: Overall, how beneficial did you find the session?
Patient	3.62 (0.54)
Partner	3.64 (0.49)		0.86
Patient with partner	3.70 (0.55)
Patient without partner	3.53 (0.50)		0.10

Comparisons between patients and partners and patient with partner and patient without partner for questions 1–4 with chi-square and question 5 with two-tailed t-test. Missing p-value indicates inadequate sample size for analysis

ISSN: 1475-2891