Improving the health and well-being of cancer survivors: past as prologue (original) (raw)
Related papers
Importance of Social Support in Cancer Patients
Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention, 2012
Social support is regarded as a complex construct which has long been suggested to have direct and buffering effects on patients' wellbeing and emotional adjustment to cancer. Cross-sectional and prospective studies show a positive association between perceived social support and psychological adjustment following cancer treatment. Research findings suggest that the evidence for the relationship between social support and cancer progression is sufficiently strong. This report points out the importance of social support in cancer and provides recommendations for health care professionals.
Social relations, social support and survival among patients with cancer
Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 1992
This study examined the relationship between social relationships and social support and survival following a first diagnosis of breast, colorectal, or lung cancer. Findings showed different factors related to survival for those with breast vs lung or colorectal cancer and for those with localized vs non-localized cancers. Results provide important evidence that social relations and social support may operate differently depending on cancer site and extent of disease.
Health Psychology, 1996
Several research literatures are reviewed that address the associations of emotional, informational, and instrumental social support to psychological adjustment to cancer. Descriptive studies suggest that emotional support is most desired by patients, and correlational studies suggest that emotional support has the strongest associations with better adjustment. However, the evidence for the effectiveness of peer discussion groups aimed at providing emotional support is less than convincing. Moreover, educational groups aimed at providing informational support appear to be as effective as, if not more effective than, peer discussions. Reasons for inconsistencies between the correlational and intervention literatures are discussed, and future directions are outlined.
Background and Aim: Cancer produces many problems in all dimensions of human life. and cause increased supportive needs patients. Dramatic increase in the number of cancer patients, different treatments and health care costs highlights the need for a better social setting towards a healthy life. Present study determines the correlation between perceived social support from different and supportive sources and size social network with quality of life in cancer patients Material and Method: A descriptive correlational design was used for this study. Using continuous sampling 220 patients from Firoozgar, Hazrat-e-Rasool hospitals and Emam Khomeini (rah) Cancer Institute recruited for participation in the study. They were asked to respond to Nortouse Social Support (SSQ) and the Ferrans and Powers Quality of Life Index-cancer version (QLI-CV) questionnaires. The computer software SPSS 13 was used for data analysis. Descriptive statistics, chi-square tests, spearman correlation and multiple linear regression tests were used. Results: Findings showed that more than half of the patients (56.4%) had experienced a moderately good quality of life, and most of them perceived moderate social support from their middle-sized social networks. A statistically significant positive correlation was found between quality of life and perceived social support (r s =0.415, P=0.00), particularly support from spouses and family members. Also, there was statistically significant positive correlation between quality of life and size of social network (r s =0.245, P=0.00). Multiple linear regression test showed that 31.6% of variation in the quality of life was related to perceived social support, type of treatment and economic status. Conclusion: Oncology nurses are recommended to apply the finding for enhancing the social networks of cancer patients and give them suitable support. Study results demonstrated that perceived social support, type of treatment and economic status accounted for 31/6% of variations of quality of life and a large amount of variance remains unexplained, so further researches is needed.
This qualitative study examined the questions of what cancer support groups provide that other supportive relationships do not, and what the self perceived consequences are of support group attendance. Nine representative Australian cancer peer support groups, consisting of a total of 93 interviewees, 75 women, and 18 men, with a mean age of 62, took part in participant observation and focus group interviews, with the data analysed using positioning theory. Support groups were positioned by participants as providing a unique sense of community, unconditional acceptance, and information about cancer and its treatment, in contrast to the isolation, rejection, and lack of knowledge about cancer frequently experienced outside the group. Groups were also positioned as occasionally emotionally challenging, in contrast to the experience of normalising support from family and friends. Increased empowerment and agency were positioned as the most significant consequences of group support, consisting of increased confidence and a sense of control in relation to self, living with cancer, and interactions with others, in particular the medical profession. The support group was also positioned as facilitating positive relationships with family and friends because of relieving their burden of care, by providing a safe space for the expression of emotion. No difference was found between professionally led and peer led support groups, suggesting that it is not the professional background of the leader which is of importance, but whether the group provides a supportive environment, mutuality, and a sense of belonging, and whether it meets the perceived needs of those attending. It is suggested that future research should examine the construction and experience of social support in those who drop out of, or who do not attend, cancer support groups, in order to provide further insight into the contrast between social support within groups and support in other contexts.
Acta Oncologica, 2019
Background: This prospective multicenter study aimed to investigate the courses of positive support (PS) and detrimental interaction (DI), two different aspects of social support, and the relation between social support and psychosocial distress and/or health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in a large sample of patients with different cancers. Methods: For this observational study, we enrolled adult patients with cancer from 13 comprehensive cancer centers (CCCs) in Germany. We included a total of 1087 patients in our analysis. We assessed the outcomes via standardized self-report questionnaires at three measurement points: at admission for acute care (T1), 6 (T2) and 12 months (T3) thereafter. Our outcome variables included PS and DI, depression and anxiety symptoms, distress, mental quality of life (MQoL) and physical QoL (PQoL). Data were analyzed using three-level hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) and group-based trajectory modeling. Results: During the first year after the cancer diagnosis, both PS and DI decreased in our sample. Baseline depression symptom severity was a significant predictor of PS and DI. Further analyses revealed significant associations between PS, DI and the course of depression and anxiety symptoms, and MQoL. PS buffered the negative effects of DI with regards to these variables. Low DI was associated with better PQoL, whereas PS was not. In general, the impact of social support on psychosocial outcomes was weak to moderate. Conclusions: Our findings provide evidence for the influence of PS and DI on psychosocial symptoms and HRQOL, and emphasize the importance of psycho-oncological interventions that strengthen PS and prevent or reduce DI for patients with cancer and their relatives.
Types and sources of social support for people afflicted with cancer
Nursing and Health Sciences, 2000
The social support network of adults afflicted with cancer related to sexual organs and the breasts was assessed in this study. Two hundred and eighteen respondents completed the Norbeck Social Support Questionnaire. The social support network of adults with cancer was found to include the following: spouses/partner, family, friends, other non-professionals and professionals. The average number of people in each network was about eight. Overall, the respondents reported a high amount of perceived total functional support concerning affect, affirmation and aid. The difference between being male or female and being married or not was statistically significant. There was no difference in the perception of support between married and unmarried respondents. The majority of the respondents were married. Women scored higher in emotional support than did men, and this difference was statistically significant. Having children and grandchildren also showed significant differences according to social support. The duration of the relationship with network members ranged from less than 6 months to more than 5 years.
Cancer Management and Research
This study tested the logistical feasibility of obtaining data on social support systems from cancer patients enrolled on clinical trials and compared the social support of older adults (age ≥65) and younger adults (<50 years of age) with cancer. Patients had to be eligible for a phase II or phase III oncology clinical trial and enter the study prior to treatment. Patients filled out the Lubben Social Network Scale (LSNS) at baseline. The Symptom Distress Scale (SDS) and single-item overall quality of life (QOL) Uniscale were assessed at baseline and weekly for 4 weeks. There was no significant difference in overall mean Lubben social support levels by age. Older patients had more relatives they felt close to (85% versus 53% with 5 or more relatives, P = 0.02), heard from more friends monthly (84% versus 53% with 3 or more friends, P = 0.02), less overall symptom distress (P = 0.03), less insomnia (P = 0.003), better concentration (P = 0.005), better outlook (P = 0.01), and less ...