Understanding social network support, composition, and structure among cancer caregivers

Abstract

Objective: We examined the social network support, composition, and structure of pediatric cancer caregivers. Methods:We used a self-report survey to collect egocentric social network data from 107 caregivers of pediatric cancer patients and calculated descriptive statistics to examine cancer-related support network composition, function, and structure.We then ran logistic regressions to examine the relationships between network characteristics and overall satisfaction with social support.Results: Family members were the most common source of emotional support and logistical support, and health care providers were the most common source of informational support. Participants perceived the "most helpful" forms of support as being: (1) emotional support from family and health care providers; (2) informational support from health care providers and other cancer caregivers; and (3) logistical support from family. Overall, caregivers wished that 9.8% of their network ties had provided more support, with family members being the most common alter type to disappoint caregivers and offer less support than needed/expected. Caregivers who reported higher network disappointment (having network members who offered less support than needed/expected) were significantly less satisfied with emotional support than those with lower network disappointment (Odds Ratio = 0.18, p = 0.02), and caregivers with higher network disappointment were significantly less satisfied with logistical support compared to those with lower network disappointment (Odds Ratio = 0.14, p = 0.01). Conclusion:Our results show differences in the nature of social support provided by different types of network members. These findings have implications for tailoring social network interventions to improve caregiver and family outcomes.

Changes in Network Size, Quality, and Composition among Informal Caregivers in Different Welfare Clusters: Longitudinal Analyses Based on a Pan-European Survey (SHARE)

“…This is in line with our expectations based on social role theory [42] and the gendered and familial nature of caregiving [35]. Focusing primarily on family had partly been indicated before [16,17]. Adding to this, the average quality of the network, in terms of contact frequency and closeness, did not change among inside caregivers.…”

“…However, longitudinal research from Germany found an increased network size among informal caregivers [3]. Mostly, family members were found to be a key part of the social network [16, 17]. Yet, there was also evidence from Iran and China of small networks with fewer immediate family members than expected [17, 18].…”

“…The composition of the network may also shift. Caregiving is mostly perceived as a feminine and family task [35], although previous findings on the relevance of family are mixed [16, 17]. Thus, caregivers may be more inclined to change their network in terms of adding more women and family members, in particular among inside caregivers.…”

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

“…For example, coworkers and neighbors can offer seemingly small but important support, such as flexibility in scheduling meetings or helping with yard maintenance, that frees up caregiver time and mental load. Research on non-biological/legal family support and the importance of broader social networks in caregiving is limited but growing [ 35 , 36 , 37 ]; future work can elucidate how caregivers can best leverage this support.…”

Perceived loss of support to community caregivers during the COVID‐19 pandemic in the United States

“…We asked caregivers to report on their perceptions of their immediate social environments using a personal network approach to measure extended networks, including caregivers' own network ties and supportive ties to the older adults to whom they provide care, including other caregivers in the network. This approach has been used to investigate social networks of small samples of caregivers of older adults (Friedman & Kennedy, 2021) in the United States and internationally (Llopis Cañameras, 2015; Rodríguez‐Madrid et al, 2018) as well as caregivers of pediatric cancer patients (Bouchard et al, 2023). This approach is in contrast to an approach that measures social networks from multiple informat reports of connections among caregivers within a closed community, such as families, assisted living communities, or those attending local adult daycare centers (Ashida et al, 2018; Koehly et al, 2015; Marcum et al, 2018).…”