A conceptual model of social networks and mechanisms of cancer mortality, and potential strategies to improve survival: an invited commentary

Abstract

In this article, the importance of social factors for cancer survivorship has been theoretically considered and empirically studied. This commentary and Kroenke's narrative review highlight how social network theory and methods may innovatively expand this substantive body of work. First, we add to a new understanding of cancer survivorship through: (a) discussing the delineation and differences between multiple social factors of interest across existing conceptual models; (b) characterizing their relationships to each other and to cancer survivorship through a social network lens; and (c) overall, sharing terminology and strengthening connections within this diverse body of literature. Second, we note opportunities for future research in terms of (a) simultaneous measurement of multiple social factors at different levels and (b) adaptation of designs to leverage and measure the theorized mechanisms. This commentary describes how incorporation of social network research can optimize research, practice, and policy contributions regarding cancer survival and survivorship.

Equity in Cancer and Chronic Disease Prevention through a Multi-Pronged Network Intervention: Works-in-Progress

“…Our findings contribute to growing research on the feasibility of network-based models for equity in cancer prevention and control [42,43,48]. Training 120 CHWs resulted in the successful reach of 1499 community members within less than a year, in line with past research on CHWs and navigators [46,47]. Our findings further suggested that CHWs and navigators can empower residents to become change agents themselves.…”

“…Successful information transfer reflects both the quality of learning by the community member and the specificity of the message that they will share as a change agent. High information transfer thus may lead residents to use information for themselves and to diffuse high-quality messages throughout their networks [46][47][48][49]. While promising, these conceptual mechanisms may depend on various factors.…”

Comparing Different Interventions’ Effects on Latinas’ Screening Mammography Attainment and Participant-Driven Information Diffusion

“…An additional limitation to the underestimation of intervention efficacy is the failure to measure “spillover effects.” This includes changes in BC communication and behavior among nonparticipants who are connected to participants. Simultaneous measurement of direct intervention effects (i.e., participant behaviors) and spillover effects (i.e., network members’ behaviors) can be useful for more precise, comprehensive estimates of intervention efficacy (Benjamin-Chung et al, 2015; El-Sayed et al, 2012; Molina, 2018; Valente & Pitts, 2017).…”

Cancer-Related Debt and Mental-Health-Related Quality of Life among Rural Cancer Survivors: Do Family/Friend Informal Caregiver Networks Moderate the Relationship?

“…We consider these factors in terms of family/friend informal caregivers. First, family/friend informal caregivers may not necessarily provide the cancer-specific support necessary to buffer cancer-related debt and other stressors (e.g., knowledge of financial assistance programs) when compared to health care providers and more peripheral network members (e.g., new peer survivor acquaintances; Arora et al 2007; Kroenke 2018; Molina 2018; Molina et al 2016). Second, family and friends provide cancer-related caregiving in the context of affectively close relationships, long-term relationships, and normative expectations of family responsibility for care (Jacobs et al 2016; Keating et al 2003; Litwin and Auslander 1990).…”