Leah T Tolby1, Elisa N Hofmeister1, Sophie Fisher1, Sabrina Chao1, Catherine Benedict1, Allison W Kurian2, Jonathan S Berek2, Lidia Schapira2, Oxana G Palesh3,4. 1. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University, 401 Quarry Road, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA. 2. Stanford Cancer Institute, Stanford, CA, USA. 3. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University, 401 Quarry Road, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA. opalesh@stanford.edu. 4. Stanford Cancer Institute, Stanford, CA, USA. opalesh@stanford.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We sought to characterize the use of social media (SM) among breast and gynecologic cancer survivors, as well as associations between patterns of SM use and psychosocial outcomes. METHODS: Two hundred seventy-three breast and gynecologic cancer survivors recruited at the Stanford Women's Cancer Center completed the study. Participants completed questionnaires to measure quality of life (FACT-G), functional social support (Duke-UNC FSSQ), distress (PHQ-4), decision regret (DRS), and SM use. RESULTS: In total, 75.8% of the sample reported using SM. There was no difference in quality of life (QOL), functional social support (FSS), distress, or decision regret between SM users and non-users. SM users indicated using SM for social support (34.3%) and loneliness (24.6%) more than for information-seeking (15.9%), coping (18.8%), or self-disclosure (14%). SM use for coping was associated with lower QOL (p < .001), lower FSS (p < .001), and higher decision regret (p = .029). Use for social support was associated with lower FSS (p = .029). Use for information seeking was associated with lower QOL (p = .012). Use of SM when lonely was associated with lower QOL (p < .001), higher distress (p = .007), lower FSS (p < .001), and higher decision regret (p = .020). CONCLUSIONS: Associations between SM use and psychosocial outcomes are nuanced and dependent on motivation for use. Further research is needed to better characterize SM use and associations with psychosocial outcomes among cancer survivors. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: SM is an important potential avenue for understanding and addressing the psychosocial effects associated with cancer survivorship.
PURPOSE: We sought to characterize the use of social media (SM) among breast and gynecologic cancer survivors, as well as associations between patterns of SM use and psychosocial outcomes. METHODS: Two hundred seventy-three breast and gynecologic cancer survivors recruited at the Stanford Women's Cancer Center completed the study. Participants completed questionnaires to measure quality of life (FACT-G), functional social support (Duke-UNC FSSQ), distress (PHQ-4), decision regret (DRS), and SM use. RESULTS: In total, 75.8% of the sample reported using SM. There was no difference in quality of life (QOL), functional social support (FSS), distress, or decision regret between SM users and non-users. SM users indicated using SM for social support (34.3%) and loneliness (24.6%) more than for information-seeking (15.9%), coping (18.8%), or self-disclosure (14%). SM use for coping was associated with lower QOL (p < .001), lower FSS (p < .001), and higher decision regret (p = .029). Use for social support was associated with lower FSS (p = .029). Use for information seeking was associated with lower QOL (p = .012). Use of SM when lonely was associated with lower QOL (p < .001), higher distress (p = .007), lower FSS (p < .001), and higher decision regret (p = .020). CONCLUSIONS: Associations between SM use and psychosocial outcomes are nuanced and dependent on motivation for use. Further research is needed to better characterize SM use and associations with psychosocial outcomes among cancer survivors. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: SM is an important potential avenue for understanding and addressing the psychosocial effects associated with cancer survivorship.
Authors: Kang Namkoong; Bryan McLaughlin; Woohyun Yoo; Shawnika J Hull; Dhavan V Shah; Sojung C Kim; Tae Joon Moon; Courtney N Johnson; Robert P Hawkins; Fiona M McTavish; David H Gustafson Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr Date: 2013-12
Authors: Lauren P Wallner; Kathryn A Martinez; Yun Li; Reshma Jagsi; Nancy K Janz; Steven J Katz; Sarah T Hawley Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2016-12-01 Impact factor: 31.777
Authors: Alexis Koskan; Lynne Klasko; Stacy N Davis; Clement K Gwede; Kristen J Wells; Ambuj Kumar; Natalia Lopez; Cathy D Meade Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2014-05-15 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Annette L Stanton; Elizabeth H Thompson; Catherine M Crespi; John S Link; James R Waisman Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2013-08-12 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Deanna J Attai; Michael S Cowher; Mohammed Al-Hamadani; Jody M Schoger; Alicia C Staley; Jeffrey Landercasper Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2015-07-30 Impact factor: 5.428