PURPOSE: We prospectively examined social ties and survival after breast cancer diagnosis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Participants included 2,835 women from the Nurses' Health Study who were diagnosed with stages 1 to 4 breast cancer between 1992 and 2002. Of these women, 224 deaths (107 of these related to breast cancer) accrued to the year 2004. Social networks were assessed in 1992, 1996, and 2000 with the Berkman-Syme Social Networks Index. Social support was assessed in 1992 and 2000 as the presence and availability of a confidant. Cox proportional hazards models were used in prospective analyses of social networks and support, both before and following diagnosis, and subsequent survival. RESULTS: In multivariate-adjusted analyses, women who were socially isolated before diagnosis had a subsequent 66% increased risk of all-cause mortality (HR = 1.66; 95% CI, 1.04 to 2.65) and a two-fold increased risk of breast cancer mortality (HR = 2.14; 95% CI, 1.11 to 4.12) compared with women who were socially integrated. Women without close relatives (HR = 2.65; 95% CI, 1.03 to 6.82), friends (HR = 4.06; 95% CI, 1.40 to 11.75), or living children (HR = 5.62; 95% CI, 1.20 to 26.46) had elevated risks of breast cancer mortality and of all-cause mortality compared with those with the most social ties. Neither participation in religious or community activities nor having a confidant was related to outcomes. Effect estimates were similar in analyses of postdiagnosis networks. CONCLUSION: Socially isolated women had an elevated risk of mortality after a diagnosis of breast cancer, likely because of a lack of access to care, specifically beneficial caregiving from friends, relatives, and adult children.
PURPOSE: We prospectively examined social ties and survival after breast cancer diagnosis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Participants included 2,835 women from the Nurses' Health Study who were diagnosed with stages 1 to 4 breast cancer between 1992 and 2002. Of these women, 224 deaths (107 of these related to breast cancer) accrued to the year 2004. Social networks were assessed in 1992, 1996, and 2000 with the Berkman-Syme Social Networks Index. Social support was assessed in 1992 and 2000 as the presence and availability of a confidant. Cox proportional hazards models were used in prospective analyses of social networks and support, both before and following diagnosis, and subsequent survival. RESULTS: In multivariate-adjusted analyses, women who were socially isolated before diagnosis had a subsequent 66% increased risk of all-cause mortality (HR = 1.66; 95% CI, 1.04 to 2.65) and a two-fold increased risk of breast cancer mortality (HR = 2.14; 95% CI, 1.11 to 4.12) compared with women who were socially integrated. Women without close relatives (HR = 2.65; 95% CI, 1.03 to 6.82), friends (HR = 4.06; 95% CI, 1.40 to 11.75), or living children (HR = 5.62; 95% CI, 1.20 to 26.46) had elevated risks of breast cancer mortality and of all-cause mortality compared with those with the most social ties. Neither participation in religious or community activities nor having a confidant was related to outcomes. Effect estimates were similar in analyses of postdiagnosis networks. CONCLUSION: Socially isolated women had an elevated risk of mortality after a diagnosis of breast cancer, likely because of a lack of access to care, specifically beneficial caregiving from friends, relatives, and adult children.
Authors: Arti Hurria; Ilene S Browner; Harvey Jay Cohen; Crystal S Denlinger; Mollie deShazo; Martine Extermann; Apar Kishor P Ganti; Jimmie C Holland; Holly M Holmes; Mohana B Karlekar; Nancy L Keating; June McKoy; Bruno C Medeiros; Ewa Mrozek; Tracey O'Connor; Stephen H Petersdorf; Hope S Rugo; Rebecca A Silliman; William P Tew; Louise C Walter; Alva B Weir; Tanya Wildes Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2012-02 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Erin S Costanzo; Robert S Stawski; Carol D Ryff; Christopher L Coe; David M Almeida Journal: Health Psychol Date: 2012-01-23 Impact factor: 4.267
Authors: Sue P Heiney; Linda J Hazlett; Sally P Weinrich; Linda M Wells; Swann Arp Adams; Sandra Millon Underwood; Rudolph S Parrish Journal: Res Theory Nurs Pract Date: 2011 Impact factor: 0.688
Authors: Pearman D Parker; Sue P Heiney; Swann Arp Adams; Daniela B Friedman; Robin M Dawson Journal: Appl Nurs Res Date: 2020-07-23 Impact factor: 2.257
Authors: William H Walker; O Hecmarie Meléndez-Fernández; Jordan L Pascoe; Ning Zhang; A Courtney DeVries Journal: Brain Behav Immun Date: 2020-07-29 Impact factor: 7.217
Authors: Andrew J Saykin; Michiel B de Ruiter; Brenna C McDonald; Sabine Deprez; Daniel H S Silverman Journal: Brain Imaging Behav Date: 2013-12 Impact factor: 3.978
Authors: Keely A Muscatell; Naomi I Eisenberger; Janine M Dutcher; Steven W Cole; Julienne E Bower Journal: Brain Behav Immun Date: 2015-09-15 Impact factor: 7.217