AUTHOR=Cloyes Kristin G. , Guo Jia-Wen , Tennant Karrin E. , McCormick Rachael , Mansfield Kelly J. , Wawrzynski Sarah E. , Classen Sarah C. , Jones Eric C. , Reblin Maija TITLE=Exploring Social Support Networks and Interactions of Young Adult and LGBTQIA+ Cancer Survivors and Care Partners JOURNAL=Frontiers in Oncology VOLUME=12 YEAR=2022 URL=https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/oncology/articles/10.3389/fonc.2022.852267 DOI=10.3389/fonc.2022.852267 ISSN=2234-943X ABSTRACT=Purpose

The purpose of this study was to describe the social support networks and daily support interactions of cancer-affected individuals, including young adult (YA) and LGBTQIA+ survivors and care partners.

Methods

Participants were recruited at two United States cancer centers and via social media for a pilot study testing a novel online method for collecting prospective, daily social support interaction data (N=28). All participants were aged 18+; survivors had a current or recent cancer diagnosis and were engaged in treatment and/or services; care partners were identified by the survivors. Enrollment also purposefully targeted YA and LGBTQIA+ survivors. Social network data (up to 10 members) were assessed at baseline. Daily online surveys assessed support interactions between participants and specific network members over 14 days. Descriptive statistics summarized data and explored between-group (YA/non-YA, LGBTQIA+/non-LGBTQIA+) differences in social network characteristics (size, heterogeneity, density, centralization, cohesion) and support interactions (support source and type).

Results

There were no significant differences between YA and non-YA participants on any measures. LGBTQIA+ participants’ support networks were less dense (Mdn=0.69 vs. 0.82, p=.02), less cohesive (Mdn=0.85 vs. 0.91,.02), more centered on the participant (Mdn=0.40 vs. 0.24, p=.047), and included more LGBTQIA+ members (Mdn=0.35 vs. 0.00, p<.001). LGBTQIA+ participants reported having more interactions with LGBTQIA+ network members (Mdn=14.0 vs. Mdn=0.00, p<.001) and received significantly more of all types of support from LGBTQIA+ vs. non-LGBTQIA+ members. LGBTQIA+ participants also reported receiving more appraisal support than non-LGBTQIA+ (Mdn 21.64 vs. 9.12, p=.008) including more appraisal support from relatives (Mdn=11.73 vs 6.0, p+.037).

Conclusions

Important information related to support access, engagement, and needs is embedded within the everyday contexts of the social networks of cancer-affected people. Individualized, accessible, and prospective assessment could help illuminate how their “real world” support systems are working and identify specific strengths and unmet needs. These insights would inform the development of more culturally competent and tailored interventions to help people understand and leverage their unique support systems. This is particularly critical for groups like YA and LGBTQIA+ survivors and care partners that are underserved by formal support services and underrepresented in cancer, caregiving, and social support research.