ArticleJournal of cancer survivorship : research and practice2025
Assessing social support networks in cancer survivors and their care partners: concordance between expected and received support.
Article in Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Content Validation of Primary Care Network Assessment Scale for Palliative Care Patients (ARCP) and Clinical Utility in Patients With Advanced Cancer.Scandinavian journal of caring sciences · 2026Article
- Humanistic nursing care and quality of life in patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma: a prospective observational study.BMC nursing · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeCancer survivors and care partners rely on their personal social networks for emotional, informational, instrumental, and belonging support. We examined concordance between expected and received support by assessing how participants' initial reports of which network members would provide specific types of support aligned with the support they reported receiving over time.
methodsAt baseline, 32 survivors diagnosed within the past 5 years and their care partners (N = 64) identified 7-20 network members and the types of support each routinely provided. Participants completed repeated interaction surveys over 3 months, describing interactions with network members and the type of support received. Concordance was calculated by comparing baseline expectations to subsequent reports, and associations with participant demographics, network characteristics, and interaction patterns were examined.
resultsConcordance across all participants and support types was 38%. Individually, average concordance was 57%, with wide variability. Concordance was highest for emotional support and lower for informational and practical support. Higher concordance was associated with more frequent interactions and fewer unhelpful or absent support experiences. No significant associations were found with participant demographics or structural network features.
conclusionsSurvivors and care partners may be challenged to anticipate how support from their personal networks will unfold over time. Concordance varied by support type and was more closely related to quality and frequency of support interactions than structural network characteristics. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Interventions that help survivors and care partners assess their support resources and variation over time may improve alignment between support needs and experiences, enhancing well-being.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40830722What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.