CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 162Cancer survivorship and careHealth disparities and outcomesGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 57 of the 57 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Social networks, social support, and burden in relationships, and mortality after breast cancer diagnosis in the Life After Breast Cancer Epidemiology (LACE) Study

Open access
Kroenke, Candyce H., Quesenberry, Charles, Kwan, Marilyn L., Sweeney, Carol, Castillo, Adrienne, Caan, Bette J.·2013·Breast Cancer Research and Treatment
DOI 10.1007/s10549-012-2253-8PMC PMC4019377
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Larger social networks have been associated with lower breast cancer mortality. The authors evaluated how levels of social support and burden influenced this association. We included 2,264 women from the Life After Cancer Epidemiology study who were diagnosed with early-stage, invasive breast cancer between 1997 and 2000, and provided data on social networks (spouse or intimate partner, religious/social ties, volunteering, time socializing with friends, and number of first-degree female relatives), social support, and caregiving. 401 died during a median follow-up of 10.8 years follow-up with 215 from breast cancer. We used delayed entry Cox proportional hazards regression to evaluate associations. In multivariate-adjusted analyses, social isolation was unrelated to recurrence or breast cancer-specific mortality. However, socially isolated women had higher all-cause mortality (HR = 1.34, 95 % CI: 1.03-1.73) and mortality from other causes (HR = 1.79, 95 % CI: 1.19-2.68). Levels of social support and burden modified associations. Among those with low, but not high, levels of social support from friends and family, lack of religious/social participation (HR = 1.58, 95 % CI: 1.07-2.36, p = 0.02, p interaction = 0.01) and lack of volunteering (HR = 1.78, 95 % CI: 1.15-2.77, p = 0.01, p interaction = 0.01) predicted higher all-cause mortality. In cross-classification analyses, only women with both small networks and low levels of support (HR = 1.61, 95 % CI: 1.10-2.38) had a significantly higher risk of mortality than women with large networks and high levels of support; women with small networks and high levels of support had no higher risk of mortality (HR = 1.13, 95 % CI: 0.74-1.72). Social networks were also more important for caregivers versus noncaregivers. Larger social networks predicted better prognosis after breast cancer, but associations depended on the quality and burden of family relationships.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10549-012-2253-8

Cites

57 of 57 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 57 references

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Arno PS (2002) The economic value of informal caregiving, U.S., 2000. American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry, Orlando, FL

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–162 of 162

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Kroenke, C. H., Quesenberry, C., Kwan, M. L., Sweeney, C., Castillo, A., & Caan, B. J.
Affiliations
  • Kaiser Permanente (US)
  • University of Utah (US)
Corresponding author
Kroenke, Candyce H.
ORCID
Venue
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2012-11-10
Volume
137
Issue
1
Pages
261-271
ISSN
  • 0167-6806 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-7217
DOI
10.1007/s10549-012-2253-8
PMC
PMC4019377
OpenAlex
W2026142354
Cited by
162
References
57
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 4
FWCI
2.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
Locations
  • Breast Cancer Research and Treatment (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Cancer Institute (R01CA129059)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Social Sciences › Health › Health disparities and outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Global Cancer Incidence and Screening
Keywords
breast cancer, social networks, social support, social burden, social isolation, all-cause mortality, breast cancer-specific mortality, caregiving, religious participation, volunteering, family relationships, prognosis
MeSH terms
Breast Neoplasms, Family Characteristics, Female, Humans, Quality of Life, Social Support, Proportional Hazards Models, Caregivers, Cost of Illness, Kaplan-Meier Estimate, Social Networking

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review