Social support received by male cancer patients from friends and family may be mediated by spouse support. As a result, single male patients are at higher risk for psychological distress. Male spouses were also found to have high rates of distress. These two groups need special attention by oncologists.

The results support the assumption that married patients cope better with cancer than unmarried patients and that women cope better than men. These differences may be related to the cultural mores of Israeli society in which men are expected to play the 'hero' role or to a generally lower ability of men to use social support and of unmarried patients to get family support. Practical conclusions in terms of intervention are discussed.

The experience of having breast cancer did not hinder overall positive motivations toward childbirth, nor did it increase overall negative motivations toward childbirth, among women and their husbands. However, there were several differences between the groups, which may reflect the illness experience. For example, breast cancer survivors and their husbands reported more negative motivations toward childbirth due to health concerns than did healthy women and their husbands.

This study investigated the impact of a building-resilience intervention on coping and posttraumatic growth (PTG) in a convenience sample of 94 breast cancer survivors. PTG was divided into constructive and illusory components, based on the two-sided Janus face model (Maercker & Zoellner, 2004). We operationalized constructive PTG as an improvement in both PTG and coping, and illusory PTG as an improvement in PTG only. An 8-session group intervention was delivered to 49 women (mean age = 51.5 years, SD = 10.7) who completed self-report questionnaires at baseline and at 6 months follow-up; a control group of 45 women only completed questionnaires. More than half the participants (n = 53; 56.38%) reported increased PTG at 6 months (mean change = 0.56, SD = 0.48, η(2) = .58). The increase in both PTG and positive coping was significantly greater in the intervention group than the control group (B = 0.23 for PTG, and B = 0.35 for positive coping). Further, a higher proportion of constructive PTG (vs. illusory PTG) was reported by the participants in the intervention group (89.3%), as compared to the control group (56.3%; z = 2.57). The distinction between constructive and illusory PTG has clinical implications for interventions promoting coping and growth among cancer survivors.