Purpose/Objectives To examine partner participation in treatment decision building for localized prostate tumor congruence between partner participation and patient choice known reasons for partner non-involvement and partner fulfillment with individual treatment. (86%). Companions reported several known reasons for non-involvement: agreeing with whatever the individual decides trusting the doctor’s decisions thinking that the individual should decide respecting the patient’s decision and having to worry using the effect on their relationship if they chose the wrong treatment. Conclusions Most partners engaged in multiple activities during treatment decision making for localized prostate cancer and were satisfied with the patient’s treatment. Partner involvement was mostly congruent with patient preference. Implications for Nursing Partners’ active Tenovin-6 involvement in treatment decision making for localized prostate cancer (e.g. being involved in patients’ conversations with doctors) should be motivated and facilitated Tenovin-6 for those who prefer this type of decision making. Keywords: decision making partner Tenovin-6 localized prostate cancer treatment satisfaction logistic regression Prostate cancer is the most frequently Tenovin-6 diagnosed cancer among men in the United States (American Cancer Society 2015 National Malignancy Institute 2014 with the vast majority (81%) of the diagnosed cases being localized and potentially curable (National Malignancy Institute 2014 Treatment decision making is usually a taxing process for patients with localized prostate cancer because of a large number of available treatment options (e.g. active surveillance different types of prostatectomy various forms of radiation with or without hormonal therapy) (National Comprehensive Malignancy Network 2015 For sufferers in a intimate relationship healthcare suppliers dealing with prostate cancer frequently advise that the patient’s partner be engaged in treatment decision producing (Boehmer & Clark 2001 Nevertheless existing research frequently details treatment decision HOX1H producing being a dyadic approach between the affected person and healthcare suppliers (Zeliadt et al. 2006 with small focus on partner participation. Many descriptive (Berry et al. 2006 Diefenbach & Mohamed 2007 Shaw Scott & Ferrante 2013 and involvement research (Berry et al. 2013 Lin Aaronson Knight Carroll & Dudley 2009 about treatment decision producing for prostate tumor have centered on the sufferers’ worries and fulfillment with treatment decision producing. However companions play a significant function in how well sufferers with prostate tumor manage their disease (Ervik Nord?con & Asplund 2013 Wootten et al. 2014 Wu Mohamed Winkel & Diefenbach 2013 Companions offer informational support (e.g. gathering details helping sufferers understand details) and psychological support (e.g. convenience companionship) (Laidsaar-Powell et al. 2013 Sinfield Baker Agarwal & Tarrant 2008 Srirangam et al. 2003 Road et al. 2010 Prior research discovered that some companions had been totally excluded from the procedure decision-making procedure for prostate tumor and other lovers got a joint decision-making design where the partner talked about treatment problems with the individual (Boehmer & Clark 2001 Limited analysis explores how companions get excited about treatment decision producing whether partner Tenovin-6 participation is congruent using the patient’s expectation and whether partner participation relates to satisfaction using the patient’s tumor treatment. Finally small is well known approximately the nice known reasons for partner noninvolvement in treatment decision making. To handle these spaces this exploratory research examined companions’ participation in treatment decision producing for sufferers with recently diagnosed localized prostate tumor. The researchers referred to partner choices for and actual involvement in treatment decision making congruence between partner involvement and patient preference reasons for partner noninvolvement and the relationship between partner involvement in treatment decision making and satisfaction with the patient’s treatment. Methods Participants Partners were eligible if they (a) were aged 21 years or older (b) were identified as the partner by a patient who was diagnosed with localized prostate cancer within the past three Tenovin-6 months and consented to participate in the study and (c).