Dannielle E Kelley1, Erin E Kent2,3, Kristin Litzelman4, Michelle A Mollica2, Julia H Rowland5. 1. Cancer Prevention Fellowship Program, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland. 2. Outcomes Research Branch, Healthcare Delivery Research Program, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland. 3. ICF International, Virginia. 4. Department of Human Development and Family Studies, School of Human Ecology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin. 5. Smith Center for Healing and the Arts, Washington, DC.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Social support may have a positive impact on health outcomes for patients and caregivers, but the extent to which social support and health outcomes are interrelated for both is unknown. We examine the dyadic interrelationships between social support and health among cancer patients and their caregivers. METHODS: Lung and colorectal cancer (CRC) patient and caregiver dyadic data were obtained from the Cancer Care Outcomes Research and Surveillance Consortium. Patients and caregivers self-reported sociodemographic, social support, and caregiving characteristics at 5 (n = 218 lung; n = 222 CRC) or 12 months post-diagnosis (n = 198 lung; n = 290 CRC). Structural equation modeling was used to examine actor-partner interdependence models (APIM) of lung and CRC dyads at 5 and 12 months post-diagnosis. RESULTS: At 5 months post-diagnosis, no interdependence between patient and caregiver social support was detected for CRC or lung dyads (all P > 0.05). At 12 months post diagnosis, no interdependence was detected for CRC dyads (all P > 0.70); lung dyads showed complete interdependence, indicating patient social support is associated with better caregiver self-reported health (β = 0.15, P < 0.001), and caregiver social support is associated with better patient self-reported health (β = 0.18, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Social support has a positive impact on patient and caregiver perceived health across the cancer trajectory, and these effects may differ by cancer site and time. Future research and translational efforts are needed to identify effective ways to bolster both patient and caregiver social support and to determine critical moments for intervention.
OBJECTIVE: Social support may have a positive impact on health outcomes for patients and caregivers, but the extent to which social support and health outcomes are interrelated for both is unknown. We examine the dyadic interrelationships between social support and health among cancerpatients and their caregivers. METHODS: Lung and colorectal cancer (CRC) patient and caregiver dyadic data were obtained from the Cancer Care Outcomes Research and Surveillance Consortium. Patients and caregivers self-reported sociodemographic, social support, and caregiving characteristics at 5 (n = 218 lung; n = 222 CRC) or 12 months post-diagnosis (n = 198 lung; n = 290 CRC). Structural equation modeling was used to examine actor-partner interdependence models (APIM) of lung and CRC dyads at 5 and 12 months post-diagnosis. RESULTS: At 5 months post-diagnosis, no interdependence between patient and caregiver social support was detected for CRC or lung dyads (all P > 0.05). At 12 months post diagnosis, no interdependence was detected for CRC dyads (all P > 0.70); lung dyads showed complete interdependence, indicating patient social support is associated with better caregiver self-reported health (β = 0.15, P < 0.001), and caregiver social support is associated with better patient self-reported health (β = 0.18, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Social support has a positive impact on patient and caregiver perceived health across the cancer trajectory, and these effects may differ by cancer site and time. Future research and translational efforts are needed to identify effective ways to bolster both patient and caregiver social support and to determine critical moments for intervention.
Keywords:
Social Contextual Framework; actor-partner interdependence modeling; caregiver; colorectal cancer; dyads; health status; lung cancer; patient; social support
Authors: Rebecca L Siegel; Kimberly D Miller; Stacey A Fedewa; Dennis J Ahnen; Reinier G S Meester; Afsaneh Barzi; Ahmedin Jemal Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2017-03-01 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Michelle van Ryn; Sara Sanders; Katherine Kahn; Courtney van Houtven; Joan M Griffin; Michelle Martin; Audie A Atienza; Sean Phelan; Deborah Finstad; Julia Rowland Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2011-01 Impact factor: 3.894
Authors: D E Ediebah; C Coens; E Zikos; C Quinten; J Ringash; M T King; J Schmucker von Koch; C Gotay; E Greimel; H Flechtner; J Weis; B B Reeve; E F Smit; M J B Taphoorn; A Bottomley Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2014-04-17 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Rongfei Suo; Lijuan Zhang; Hongmei Tao; Fenglian Ye; Yuening Zhang; Jun Yan Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2021-03-11 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Ulrike Boehmer; Jennifer Potter; Melissa A Clark; Michael Winter; Flora Berklein; Rachel M Ceballos; Kevan Hartshorn; Al Ozonoff Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2021-04-14 Impact factor: 4.442
Authors: Jennifer L Moss; Casey N Pinto; Scherezade K Mama; Maria Rincon; Erin E Kent; Mandi Yu; Kathleen A Cronin Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2020-11-02 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Claudio Singh Solorzano; Elizabeth Leigh; Andrew Steptoe; Amy Ronaldson; Tara Kidd; Marjan Jahangiri; Lydia Poole Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-05-19 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Ulrike Boehmer; Al Ozonoff; Michael Winter; Flora Berklein; Jennifer Potter; Kevan L Hartshorn; Kevin C Ward; Rachel M Ceballos; Melissa A Clark Journal: Cancer Date: 2021-07-08 Impact factor: 6.921