Muneera R Kapadia1, Christine M Veenstra2, Rachel E Davis3, Sarah T Hawley2, Arden M Morris4. 1. Department of Surgery, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. 2. 1259 Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine, Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. 3. 2629 Department of Health Promotion, Education, and Behavior, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, USA. 4. 6429 S-SPIRE Center, Department of Surgery, Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford, CA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Social support, which is partly emotional support, is associated with adherence to colorectal cancer (CRC) treatment, quality of life, and survival. We hypothesized that the needs, sources, and availability of emotional support would vary by race and income among CRC patients and sought to quantify the emotional support and the perceived adequacy of support reported by patients. METHODS: We surveyed CRC patients from Detroit and Georgia Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results registries about the quantity and quality of emotional support received from different sources. We tested differences using the chi-square test, t-tests, and logistic regression. RESULTS: There were 1909 patients who met inclusion criteria and 1301 (68%) completed surveys. Among respondents, 68% were white, 25% black, and 7% other. Black patients were more likely to be female and younger and reported lower annual income and education. Patients reported high support from several sources. Among those with a spouse/partner (58%), 95% reported high levels of support; however, older, black, female, or lower income patients were less likely to have spouses/partners (P < .001). Patients also endorsed high support from family (88.6%), important others (82.9%), and clinicians (71.3%). Black patients were less likely than white patients to report support that was "just right" (P < .001). DISCUSSION: Most patients reported high emotional support from at least 1 source. Black patients were most at risk for low support or unmet support needs. Spouse/partner support was important but only available to 58% of respondents. Patients at risk for unmet emotional support needs may benefit from additional support resources.
BACKGROUND: Social support, which is partly emotional support, is associated with adherence to colorectal cancer (CRC) treatment, quality of life, and survival. We hypothesized that the needs, sources, and availability of emotional support would vary by race and income among CRC patients and sought to quantify the emotional support and the perceived adequacy of support reported by patients. METHODS: We surveyed CRC patients from Detroit and Georgia Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results registries about the quantity and quality of emotional support received from different sources. We tested differences using the chi-square test, t-tests, and logistic regression. RESULTS: There were 1909 patients who met inclusion criteria and 1301 (68%) completed surveys. Among respondents, 68% were white, 25% black, and 7% other. Black patients were more likely to be female and younger and reported lower annual income and education. Patients reported high support from several sources. Among those with a spouse/partner (58%), 95% reported high levels of support; however, older, black, female, or lower income patients were less likely to have spouses/partners (P < .001). Patients also endorsed high support from family (88.6%), important others (82.9%), and clinicians (71.3%). Black patients were less likely than white patients to report support that was "just right" (P < .001). DISCUSSION: Most patients reported high emotional support from at least 1 source. Black patients were most at risk for low support or unmet support needs. Spouse/partner support was important but only available to 58% of respondents. Patients at risk for unmet emotional support needs may benefit from additional support resources.
Entities:
Keywords:
colorectal cancer; emotional support; social support
Authors: Vithusha Ganesh; Arnav Agarwal; Marko Popovic; David Cella; Rachel McDonald; Sherlyn Vuong; Henry Lam; Leigha Rowbottom; Stephanie Chan; Tasneem Barakat; Carlo DeAngelis; Michael Borean; Edward Chow; Andrew Bottomley Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2016-05-18 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Amy L Sapp; Amy Trentham-Dietz; Polly A Newcomb; John M Hampton; Carol M Moinpour; Patrick L Remington Journal: Cancer Date: 2003-10-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Erin L Mead; Ardith Z Doorenbos; Sara H Javid; Emily A Haozous; Lori Arviso Alvord; David R Flum; Arden M Morris Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2013-10-17 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Christine M Veenstra; Jennifer Acosta; Rebecca Sharar; Sarah T Hawley; Arden M Morris Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2021-01-18 Impact factor: 4.452
Authors: Christine M Veenstra; Katrina R Ellis; Paul Abrahamse; Kevin C Ward; Arden M Morris; Sarah T Hawley Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2022-10-13 Impact factor: 4.638