| Literature DB >> 29248937 |
Hailing Zhang1, Qinghua Zhao1, Peiye Cao1, Guosheng Ren2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND The diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer can provoke a series of negative emotional changes in patients, further affecting their quality of life. It has been shown that patients with higher resilience have better quality of life. Social support systems are important protective factors that are necessary for the process of resilience to occur. Hence, this study aimed to investigate the role of social support in the relationship between resilience and quality of life among Chinese patients with breast cancer. MATERIAL AND METHODS A demographic-disease survey, the Chinese version of the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale 25, Medical Outcomes Study Social Support Survey, and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Breast Cancer Version 3 were used to interview 98 patients with breast cancer from a teaching hospital in Chongqing, China. Data analysis was performed by descriptive statistics, independent-sample t test, one-way ANOVA, and regression analyses. RESULTS The mean scores of resilience, social support, and quality of life were 54.68, 61.73, and 80.74 respectively, which were in the moderate range. Participants with stronger social support had higher resilience and better quality of life. Social support played a partial mediator role in the relationship between resilience and quality of life. The mediation effect ratio was 28.0%. CONCLUSIONS Social support is essential for the development of resilience and the improvement of quality of life in Chinese patients with breast cancer. Health professionals should provide appropriate guidelines to help patients seek effective support and enhance their resilience to improve their quality of life after breast cancer.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 29248937 PMCID: PMC5744469 DOI: 10.12659/msm.907730
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Med Sci Monit ISSN: 1234-1010
Figure 1Hypothetical relationship diagram.
Participants’ demographic and disease characteristics (N=98).
| Characteristic | N (%) | Mean (SD) |
|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 47.02 (9.59) | |
| Marital status | ||
| Married | 88 (89.8) | |
| Divorced | 7 (7.1) | |
| Single | 3 (3.1) | |
| Children | ||
| Yes | 89 (90.8) | |
| No | 9 (9.2) | |
| Education level | ||
| Below primary school | 12 (12.2) | |
| Junior high school | 47 (48) | |
| High school or some college | 34 (34.7) | |
| University or above | 5 (5.1) | |
| Employment status | ||
| Full-time/part-time | 21 (21.4) | |
| Retired | 16 (16.3) | |
| Unemployed | 43 (43.9) | |
| On leave due to illness | 18 (18.4) | |
| Monthly income(in RMB) | ||
| <1,000 | 13 (13.3) | |
| 1,000–3,000 | 32 (32.7) | |
| >3,000 | 53 (54.1) | |
| Living place | ||
| Provincial capital | 28 (28.6) | |
| Prefecture-level city | 25 (25.5) | |
| County | 28 (28.6) | |
| Village | 17 (17.3) | |
| Insurance | ||
| New rural co-operative medical system | 23 (23.5) | |
| Medical insurance | 68 (69.4) | |
| No | 7 (7.1) | |
| Time since diagnosis | ||
| <1year | 78 (79.6) | |
| Between 1 and 2 years | 16 (16.3) | |
| Between 2 and 5 years | 4 (4.1) | |
| Stage of breast cancer | ||
| 0 | 6 (6.1) | |
| I | 19 (19.4) | |
| II | 40 (40.8) | |
| III | 25 (25.5) | |
| IV | 8 (8.2) | |
| Surgery | ||
| Lumpectomy/breast conserving surgery | 4 (4.1) | |
| Modified radical mastectomy | 94 (95.9) | |
| Treatment type | ||
| Surgery only | 20 (20.4) | |
| Surgery + adjuvant chemotherapy | 71 (71.4) | |
| Chemotherapy | 2 (2) | |
| Others | 5 (5.1) | |
Descriptive data for resilience, social support, and quality of life and scores (N=98).
| Scale | Number of items | Possible range of scores | Actual range of scores | Mean (SD) | Cranach’s a |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 25 | 0–100 | 23–93 | 0.95 | ||
| Tenancy | 13 | 0–52 | 10–49 | 27.70 (9.39) | 0.94 |
| Strength | 8 | 0–32 | 6–32 | 18.57 (5.72) | 0.88 |
| Optimism | 4 | 0–16 | 3–16 | 8.40 (2.93) | 0.63 |
| 19 | 0–100 | 31–95 | 0.95 | ||
| Emotional-information support | 8 | 8–40 | 11–40 | 23.55 (7.40) | 0.92 |
| Tangible support | 4 | 4–20 | 4–20 | 14.24 (3.09) | 0.83 |
| Affectionate support | 3 | 3–15 | 4–15 | 10.49 (2.32) | 0.86 |
| Positive social interaction | 4 | 4–20 | 6–20 | 13.45 (3.17) | 0.85 |
| 36 | 0–144 | 35–129 | 0.91 | ||
| Physical well-being | 7 | 0–28 | 4–28 | 17.32 (4.82) | 0.78 |
| Social/family well-being | 7 | 0–28 | 3–28 | 16.24 (5.74) | 0.86 |
| Emotional well-being | 6 | 0–24 | 1–23 | 12.87 (5.60) | 0.89 |
| Functional Well-being | 7 | 0–28 | 2–28 | 13.71 (5.47) | 0.84 |
| Additional concerns | 9 | 0–36 | 10–32 | 20.60 (4.74) | 0.62 |
CD-RISC25 – Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale 25; MOS-SSS-C – Medical Outcomes Study Social Support Survey; FACT-B – Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Breast Cancer.
The differences among sample characteristics, social support and quality of life.
| Variable | Social support | QOL | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean (SD) | Mean (SD) | |||||
| Marital status | 0.018 | 0.084 | ||||
| Married | 63.42 (14.31) | 82.22 (19.44) | ||||
| Divorced | 50.00 (10.36) | 67.29 (17.87) | ||||
| Single | 49.67 (4.04) | 69.00 (9.84) | ||||
| Children | 0.724 | 0.678 | ||||
| Yes | 61.87 (14.57) | 80.48 (19.77) | ||||
| No | 63.67 (13.34) | 83.33 (17.27) | ||||
| Education level | 0.083 | 0.686 | ||||
| Below primary school | 59.08 (19.59) | 80.58 (26.95) | ||||
| Junior high school | 59.34 (13.96) | 78.53 (19.20) | ||||
| High school or some college | 65.24 (12.08) | 83.00 (18.01) | ||||
| University or above | 72.80 (13.88) | 86.60 (12.59) | ||||
| Employment status | 0.154 | 0.385 | ||||
| Full-time/part-time | 64.95 (11.10) | 80.86 (17.17) | ||||
| Retired | 67.00 (15.83) | 88.25 (24.74) | ||||
| Unemployed | 58.58 (12.93) | 78.35 (20.59) | ||||
| On leave due to illness | 62.50 (14.41) | 79.67 (12.84) | ||||
| Monthly income(in RMB) | 0.015 | 0.026 | ||||
| <1,000 | 60.69 (19.16) | 80.15 (24.80) | ||||
| 1,000–3,000 | 56.53 (12.98) | 73.56 (17.75) | ||||
| >3,000 | 65.70 (13.02) | 85.23 (18.08) | ||||
| Living place | 0.004 | 0.246 | ||||
| Provincial capital | 69.86 (13.00) | 86.25 (23.79) | ||||
| Prefecture-level city | 61.32 (11.76) | 80.76 (14.68) | ||||
| County | 58.50 (14.45) | 78.96 (16.86) | ||||
| Village | 56.06 (15.69) | 74.59 (21.15) | ||||
| Insurance | 0.070 | 0.214 | ||||
| New rural co-operative medical system | 56.04 (16.13) | 76.17 (20.30) | ||||
| Medical insurance | 64.01 (13.53) | 81.28 (19.49) | ||||
| No | 62.57 (13.30) | 90.57 (13.91) | ||||
| Time since diagnosis | 0.018 | 0.004 | ||||
| <1 year | 60.37 (14.20) | 77.69 (18.95) | ||||
| Between 1 and 2 years | 65.88 (12.80) | 90.00 (15.74) | ||||
| Between 2 and 5 years | 79.25 (13.07) | 103.20 (21.31) | ||||
| Stage of breast cancer | <0.001 | <0.001 | ||||
| 0 | 76.00 (9.63) | 103.00 (17.30) | ||||
| I | 70.89 (15.63) | 93.21 (21.04) | ||||
| II | 61.33 (12.36) | 81.12 (16.36) | ||||
| III | 56.60 (11.40) | 70.76 (11.85) | ||||
| IV | 51.13 (16.17) | 63.75 (20.21) | ||||
| Surgery type | <0.001 | <0.001 | ||||
| Lumpectomy/breast conserving surgery | 87.00 (2.44) | 117.00 (7.26) | ||||
| Modified radical mastectomy | 69.98 (13.73) | 79.20 (18.32) | ||||
| Treatment type | 0.214 | 0.170 | ||||
| Surgery only | 57.00 (14.89) | 74.80 (16.75) | ||||
| Surgery + adjuvant chemotherapy | 62.79 (13.77) | 81.68 (19.24) | ||||
| Chemotherapy | 73.50 (30.40) | 72.00 (36.77) | ||||
| Others | 67.00 (14.14) | 94.80 (24.25) | ||||
QOL – quality of life.
Correlation matrix for resilience, social support, and quality of life.
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | TR | 1 | ||||||
| 2 | SS | .660 | 1 | |||||
| 3 | ES | .589 | .899 | 1 | ||||
| 4 | TS | .532 | .844 | .606 | 1 | |||
| 5 | AS | .516 | .865 | .668 | .825 | 1 | ||
| 6 | PS | .613 | .909 | .745 | .790 | .859 | 1 | |
| 7 | QOL | .745 | .737 | .668 | .626 | .540 | .660 | 1 |
TR – total resilience; SS – social support; ES – emotional-information support; TS – tangible support; AS – affectionate support; PS – positive social interaction; QOL – quality of life.
p<0.01.
Figure 2The mediator model of social support. *** p<0.001. “+” The first step represents social support regressed on resilience. “++” The second step represents quality of life regressed on resilience. “+++” The third step represents quality of life regressed on resilience and social support.