Kristin Litzelman1,2, Maija Reblin3, Helene E McDowell4, Lori L DuBenske1,2. 1. Department of Human Development and Family Studies, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin. 2. Department of Psychiatry, University of Wisconsin Carbone Cancer Center, Madison, Wisconsin. 3. Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Florida. 4. Center for Health Enhancement Systems Studies, Madison, Wisconsin.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Social support is a key component in maintaining cancer caregiver well-being, and many resources exist to facilitate caregivers' use of social support (eg, cancer support groups). This study sought to determine how informal cancer caregivers use social resources over the course of caregiving. METHODS: The data are from the Comprehensive Health Enhancement Support System study of informal caregivers (n = 202) of patients with recently diagnosed lung cancer. Caregivers self-reported their sociodemographic and caregiving characteristics and social resource use over 6 months. Generalized additive models were used to assess social resource use over time, and generalized estimating equation logistic regression models were used to assess the correlates of social resource use. RESULTS: Nearly two-thirds of caregivers reported any social resource use. The most prevalent social resources were faith-based groups (38%) and social clubs (30%). Only 1 in 4 caregivers participated in a formal resource such as counseling (11%) or a cancer support group (6%). Social resource use was lowest immediately after the diagnosis and increased over time. Formal resource use exhibited a nonlinear association with time such that formal resource use peaked approximately 9 to 10 months after the cancer diagnosis. Caregivers were more likely to report social resource use if the patient also reported social engagement. CONCLUSIONS: This study has found that many cancer caregivers do not use social resources, although social resource use increases over time after the cancer diagnosis. Because of the association between social engagement and well-being, this information may inform future research and interventions to improve outcomes for cancer caregivers and their families.
BACKGROUND: Social support is a key component in maintaining cancer caregiver well-being, and many resources exist to facilitate caregivers' use of social support (eg, cancer support groups). This study sought to determine how informal cancer caregivers use social resources over the course of caregiving. METHODS: The data are from the Comprehensive Health Enhancement Support System study of informal caregivers (n = 202) of patients with recently diagnosed lung cancer. Caregivers self-reported their sociodemographic and caregiving characteristics and social resource use over 6 months. Generalized additive models were used to assess social resource use over time, and generalized estimating equation logistic regression models were used to assess the correlates of social resource use. RESULTS: Nearly two-thirds of caregivers reported any social resource use. The most prevalent social resources were faith-based groups (38%) and social clubs (30%). Only 1 in 4 caregivers participated in a formal resource such as counseling (11%) or a cancer support group (6%). Social resource use was lowest immediately after the diagnosis and increased over time. Formal resource use exhibited a nonlinear association with time such that formal resource use peaked approximately 9 to 10 months after the cancer diagnosis. Caregivers were more likely to report social resource use if the patient also reported social engagement. CONCLUSIONS: This study has found that many cancer caregivers do not use social resources, although social resource use increases over time after the cancer diagnosis. Because of the association between social engagement and well-being, this information may inform future research and interventions to improve outcomes for cancer caregivers and their families.
Authors: Grant R Williams; Maria Pisu; Gabrielle B Rocque; Courtney P Williams; Richard A Taylor; Elizabeth A Kvale; Edward E Partridge; Smita Bhatia; Kelly M Kenzik Journal: Cancer Date: 2018-12-03 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Brittany D Korotkin; Michael Hoerger; Sara Voorhees; Chynna O Allen; William R Robinson; Paul R Duberstein Journal: J Psychosoc Oncol Date: 2019-04-01
Authors: Halina Sklenarova; Arne Krümpelmann; Markus W Haun; Hans-Christoph Friederich; Johannes Huber; Michael Thomas; Eva C Winkler; Wolfgang Herzog; Mechthild Hartmann Journal: Cancer Date: 2015-02-11 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Candyce H Kroenke; Yvonne L Michael; Elizabeth M Poole; Marilyn L Kwan; Sarah Nechuta; Eric Leas; Bette J Caan; John Pierce; Xiao-Ou Shu; Ying Zheng; Wendy Y Chen Journal: Cancer Date: 2016-12-12 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Nadine Köhle; Constance Hc Drossaert; Suzan Oosterik; Karlein Mg Schreurs; Mariët Hagedoorn; Cornelia F van Uden-Kraan; Irma M Verdonck-de Leeuw; Ernst T Bohlmeijer Journal: JMIR Cancer Date: 2015-12-29
Authors: Avery C Bechthold; Andres Azuero; Maria Pisu; Jennifer Young Pierce; Grant R Williams; Richard A Taylor; Rachel Wells; Kayleigh Curry; Rhiannon D Reed; Erin R Harrell; Shena Gazaway; Sarah Mollman; Sally Engler; Frank Puga; Marie A Bakitas; J Nicholas Dionne-Odom Journal: Trials Date: 2022-06-02 Impact factor: 2.728
Authors: Chandylen L Nightingale; Katherine R Sterba; Laurie E McLouth; Erin E Kent; Emily V Dressler; Alexandra Dest; Anna C Snavely; Christian S Adonizio; Mark Wojtowicz; Heather B Neuman; Anne E Kazak; Ruth C Carlos; Matthew F Hudson; Joseph M Unger; Charles S Kamen; Kathryn E Weaver Journal: Cancer Date: 2020-11-02 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Ru-Yu Huang; Ting-Ting Lee; Yi-Hsien Lin; Chieh-Yu Liu; Hsiu-Chun Wu; Shu-He Huang Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-07-01 Impact factor: 4.614