ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: The role of social networks, especially weaker ties (e.g. casual acquaintances and hobby groups), in self-management of long-term consequences of cancer is unexplored. This study aimed to explore the structure of cancer survivors' social networks and their contribution to self-management support and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). METHODS: The study used a sequential, exploratory mixed methods design. Phase 1 surveyed 349 lymphoma, colorectal, breast and prostate cancer survivors. Phase 2 analysed 20 semi-structured interviews with respondents recruited from Phase 1. RESULTS: Phase 1 results suggested participants' HRQoL increased if they participated in an exercise group, if their self-management skills increased, and social distress and negative illness perception decreased (p < 0.0005 adj. R2 = 0.631). These findings were explored in Phase 2, identifying underlying mechanisms. Four themes were identified: disrupted networks after cancer treatment; navigating formal support and building individual capacity; peer networks and self-management knowledge and linking networks to enable adaptation in recovery. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests engagement with community groups, particularly those not directly related to illness management and social interaction with weak ties, make a valuable contribution to self-management support, increase HRQoL and enhance well-being.
Subject(s)
Cancer Survivors , Prostatic Neoplasms , Self-Management , Humans , Male , Prostatic Neoplasms/therapy , Quality of Life , Social Networking , Social SupportABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Cancer survivors often experience decreased self-confidence which impacts negatively on their ability to self-manage the practical, social and emotional problems frequently faced as they emerge from end of treatment. This was a feasibility study of a life-coaching intervention, designed to rebuild confidence of survivors and support transition to life after cancer treatment. METHODS: A one group pre-test, post-test design was used, recruiting participants from community organisations. Eligibility criteria are as follows: <1 year of completion of primary cancer treatment, aged >18, no metastases, and no mental health problems. Participants received one individualised face-to-face and five telephone coaching sessions over 3 months. Outcome measures are as follows: New General Self-Efficacy Scale, Hope Scale, Personal Well-being Index, Assessment of Survivorship Concerns, Quality of Life in Adult Cancer Survivors, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Social Difficulties Index, and a goal attainment score. Interviews explored feasibility, acceptability and impact of life-coaching and research design. RESULTS: Nine women and two men were recruited, representing varying cancer diagnoses. All outcome measures were sensitive to change and indicated positive trends post-intervention. Participant interviews indicated the intervention was well received and had a positive impact. Lessons were learnt about study design, recruitment and intervention delivery. CONCLUSIONS: Life-coaching has a potential to enable cancer survivors to manage the transition to life beyond cancer and effect change on a range of outcomes. The intervention was feasible to deliver and acceptable to survivors at a time when many struggle to make sense of life. It merits further evaluation through a randomised controlled trial.