Feasibility, usability, and acceptability of personalized web-based assessment of social network and daily social support interactions over time

Hospice Caregivers' Perception of Family and Non-Family Social Support and Stress over Time: Associations with Reports of General Support

Social support has been identified as a key factor to protect wellbeing for home hospice cancer caregivers. However, few studies have assessed social support over time in this context, and measures of support are often limited to general assessments of perceived support. Our goal was to (1) describe change in cancer home hospice caregivers' social support over time during care and into bereavement and (2) explore the impact of perceived stress and support from family and non-family members on caregivers' perceived general social support. We conducted a secondary analysis of longitudinal prospective questionnaire data. Forty caregivers completed measures of general perceived support, family and non-family support and stress during hospice enrollment and 2 and 6 months post the patient's death. Linear mixed models were used to determine change in support over time and the contribution of specific support/stress ratings to general support assessments. Caregivers overall had moderate and stable levels of social support over time, though there was significant variation between and within individuals. Family and non-family support and stress from family predicted general perceptions of social support, while no effects were found for non-family stress. This work suggests a need for more specific measures of support and stress, and the need for research to focus on improving baseline levels of caregiver perceived support.

Sources of informal financial support among adolescent and young adult cancer survivors: a mixed methods analysis from the HIAYA CHAT study

PURPOSE

The purpose of this exploratory sequential mixed methods study was to describe the sources of informal financial support used by adolescent and young adult (AYA) cancer survivors and how financial toxicity and demographic factors were associated with different types and magnitudes of informal financial support.

METHODS

This analysis is part of a larger health insurance literacy study that included pre-trial interviews and a randomized controlled trial (RCT) for AYA cancer survivors. Eligible study participants were 18 years of age, diagnosed with cancer as an AYA (15-39 years), insured, and for the RCT sample less than 1 year from diagnosis. Interview audio was transcribed, quality checked, and thematically analyzed. RCT baseline and follow-up surveys captured informal financial support use. Chi-squared and Fisher's exact tests were used to assess differences in informal financial support type use and frequency by financial toxicity and AYA demographics.

RESULTS

A total of N = 24 and N = 86 AYAs participated in pre-trial interviews and the RCT respectively. Interview participants reported a variety of informal financial support sources including savings, community, family/friends, and fundraisers. However, only half of participants reported their informal financial support to be sufficient. High financial toxicity was associated with the most types of informal financial support and a higher magnitude of use. The lowest income group accessed informal financial supports less frequently than higher income groups.

CONCLUSION

Our study demonstrates that AYA survivors experiencing financial toxicity frequently turn to informal sources of financial support and the magnitude is associated with financial toxicity. However, low-income survivors, and other at-risk survivors, may not have access to informal sources of financial support potentially widening inequities.

Exploring Social Support Networks and Interactions of Young Adult and LGBTQIA+ Cancer Survivors and Care Partners

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to describe the social support networks and daily support interactions of cancer-affected individuals, including young adult (YA) and LGBTQIA+ survivors and care partners.

Methods

Participants were recruited at two United States cancer centers and via social media for a pilot study testing a novel online method for collecting prospective, daily social support interaction data (N=28). All participants were aged 18+; survivors had a current or recent cancer diagnosis and were engaged in treatment and/or services; care partners were identified by the survivors. Enrollment also purposefully targeted YA and LGBTQIA+ survivors. Social network data (up to 10 members) were assessed at baseline. Daily online surveys assessed support interactions between participants and specific network members over 14 days. Descriptive statistics summarized data and explored between-group (YA/non-YA, LGBTQIA+/non-LGBTQIA+) differences in social network characteristics (size, heterogeneity, density, centralization, cohesion) and support interactions (support source and type).

Results

There were no significant differences between YA and non-YA participants on any measures. LGBTQIA+ participants’ support networks were less dense (Mdn=0.69 vs. 0.82, p=.02), less cohesive (Mdn=0.85 vs. 0.91,.02), more centered on the participant (Mdn=0.40 vs. 0.24, p=.047), and included more LGBTQIA+ members (Mdn=0.35 vs. 0.00, p<.001). LGBTQIA+ participants reported having more interactions with LGBTQIA+ network members (Mdn=14.0 vs. Mdn=0.00, p<.001) and received significantly more of all types of support from LGBTQIA+ vs. non-LGBTQIA+ members. LGBTQIA+ participants also reported receiving more appraisal support than non-LGBTQIA+ (Mdn 21.64 vs. 9.12, p=.008) including more appraisal support from relatives (Mdn=11.73 vs 6.0, p+.037).

Conclusions

Important information related to support access, engagement, and needs is embedded within the everyday contexts of the social networks of cancer-affected people. Individualized, accessible, and prospective assessment could help illuminate how their “real world” support systems are working and identify specific strengths and unmet needs. These insights would inform the development of more culturally competent and tailored interventions to help people understand and leverage their unique support systems. This is particularly critical for groups like YA and LGBTQIA+ survivors and care partners that are underserved by formal support services and underrepresented in cancer, caregiving, and social support research.