Introduction 1 2 3 5 6 7 10 11 13 14 15 16 17 20 20 22 23 24 25 28 29 30 16 31 33 34 Materials and methods Procedure and participants n Measurements 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 35 36 37 38 39 39 Statistical analyses t t t Results Sociodemographic and treatment-related variables 1 t p p n Table 1 Descriptives of sociodemographic and treatment-related variables   Patient Partner Mean SD Mean SD b 31.6 6.6 28.9 7.6  Range 19.9–43.5  19.8–44.7  Duration relationship (years) 5.7 6.3    Range 1–22    Education level 3.6 1.4 4.0 1.6  N % N % b      Employed for wages 18 95 11 58  Student 1 5 4 21  Housewife   4 21 Children      Yes 5 26    No 14 74   RRRTM +      Yes 11 58    No 8 42   RRRTM a p b p Patients’ and partners’ SRS and QoL r p r p r Z p t t p The course of SRS and QoL over time in patients and partners 2 2 Table 2 SRS and QoL of patients and partners   T1 T2 T3 Reference group Repeated measures ANOVA T1–T2 T2–T3 T1–T3 Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) F p r p r p r p Stress response symptoms Patient 18.1 (13.0) 10.2 (10.7) 12.3 (9.9)  7.9 0.012 0.65 0.002 0.71 0.001 0.70 0.001 Partner 25.8 (9.3) 15.2 (12.6) 12.1 (12.4)  17.7 0.001 0.41 ns 0.64 0.003 0.16 ns Physical functioning Patient 93.4 (10.8) 70.5 (23.4) 92.6 (13.3) a,b,c 21.4 0.001 0.28 ns 0.38 ns 0.20 ns Partner 90.2 (19.0) 90.8 (19.0) 89.7 (19.9) b,d 0.19 ns 0.79 0.001 0.80 0.001 0.97 0.001 Social functioning Patient 77.6 (19.7) 71.1 (22.8) 90.8 (13.1) d,e 9.0 0.008 0.61 0.009 0.19 ns 0.17 ns Partner 72.1 (20.2) f 84.5 (16.5) a 12.9 0.002 0.60 0.007 0.37 ns 0.68 0.001 Mental health Patient 68.2 (22.3) 77.5 (11.9) 81.9 (13.4) d 6.7 0.019 0.55 0.017 0.33 ns 0.23 ns Partner 69.1 (13.6) 71.2 (15.6) 74.3 (15.1) 75.5 (18.9) 2.6 ns 0.72 0.001 0.64 0.004 0.52 0.023 a p t b p t c p t d p t e p t f p Lower physical functioning was reported by patients at T2 compared to T1, but physical functioning returned to baseline level at T3. Earlier levels of physical functioning in patients were not significantly related to later levels, and correlations were low. A decline in social functioning of patients was also found at T2 compared to T1, but higher social functioning than at baseline was found at T3. Social functioning of patients at T1 was positively and strongly related to functioning at T2, but the relationships between T2–T3 and T1–T3 were low to moderate. Mental health of patients improved over time. Mental health at T1 was positively and strongly related to levels at T2, and weakly to levels at T3. The relationship between mental health at T2 and T3 was moderately strong. 2 QoL of patients and partners compared to that of a reference group of men and women t p t p t p t p t p t p t p t p t p 2 Discussion The present study was the first to prospectively and longitudinally examine psychosocial functioning in both testicular cancer patients and their partners. We focused on SRS and QoL (physical functioning, social functioning, and mental health) after orchiectomy but before the start of chemotherapy, immediately after completion of chemotherapy, and 9 months later (1 year follow-up). 23 34 34 20 21 40 42 22 40 39 30 6 43 Mental health of patients improved over the year. It was poorer than that of men in the reference group but only before start of chemotherapy. Mental health of partners was comparable throughout the year and to that of a reference group of women, despite the high level of SRS they reported before start of chemotherapy. SRS apparently are a different expression of mental functioning and may be encapsulated or separated out. 24 19 20 32 16 31 32