Cited by 792Cancer survivorship and careHealth disparities and outcomesGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening

Social networks, social support, and survival after breast cancer diagnosis

Open access
Kroenke, Candyce H., Kubzansky, Laura D., Schernhammer, Eva S., Holmes, Michelle D., Kawachi, Ichiro·2006·Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

PURPOSE: We prospectively examined social ties and survival after breast cancer diagnosis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Participants included 2,835 women from the Nurses' Health Study who were diagnosed with stages 1 to 4 breast cancer between 1992 and 2002. Of these women, 224 deaths (107 of these related to breast cancer) accrued to the year 2004. Social networks were assessed in 1992, 1996, and 2000 with the Berkman-Syme Social Networks Index. Social support was assessed in 1992 and 2000 as the presence and availability of a confidant. Cox proportional hazards models were used in prospective analyses of social networks and support, both before and following diagnosis, and subsequent survival. RESULTS: In multivariate-adjusted analyses, women who were socially isolated before diagnosis had a subsequent 66% increased risk of all-cause mortality (HR = 1.66; 95% CI, 1.04 to 2.65) and a two-fold increased risk of breast cancer mortality (HR = 2.14; 95% CI, 1.11 to 4.12) compared with women who were socially integrated. Women without close relatives (HR = 2.65; 95% CI, 1.03 to 6.82), friends (HR = 4.06; 95% CI, 1.40 to 11.75), or living children (HR = 5.62; 95% CI, 1.20 to 26.46) had elevated risks of breast cancer mortality and of all-cause mortality compared with those with the most social ties. Neither participation in religious or community activities nor having a confidant was related to outcomes. Effect estimates were similar in analyses of postdiagnosis networks. CONCLUSION: Socially isolated women had an elevated risk of mortality after a diagnosis of breast cancer, likely because of a lack of access to care, specifically beneficial caregiving from friends, relatives, and adult children.

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 · 10.1200/jco.2005.04.2846

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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?

  • Social support is linked with higher rates of cancer survivorship.

    “and social support is linked with higher rates of cancer survivorship.71”

    From Preliminary Development of a Mindfulness-Based Group Therapy to Expand Couples’ Sexual Intimacy after Prostate Cancer: A Mixed Methods Approach (2021) · cites this paper as [71]

    The Discussion reports prior studies linking greater emotional support with lower mortality among cancer patients. But this study found that social ties, not its measure of social-emotional support (having a confidant), were associated with survival after breast cancer diagnosis. The claim blurs that distinction and extends a breast-cancer finding to cancer generally. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • SDoH which are less commonly targeted for extraction have been shown to impact healthcare.

    “In addition to our technical innovations, our work adds to prior efforts by investigating SDoH which are less commonly targeted for extraction but nonetheless have been shown to impact healthcare43–51.”

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kroenke, C. H., Kubzansky, L. D., Schernhammer, E. S., Holmes, M. D., & Kawachi, I.
Affiliations
Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
Corresponding author
Kroenke, Candyce H.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
2006-03-01
Volume
24
Issue
7
Pages
1105-1111
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
OpenAlex
W2168825005
Cited by
792
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 30 · 2025: 36 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 85 · 2022: 41 · 2021: 61 · 2020: 37 · 2019: 48 · 2018: 39 · 2017: 39 · 2016: 48 · 2015: 37 · 2014: 49 · 2013: 52 · 2012: 31
FWCI
11.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Oncology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (CA 87969)
  • National Cancer Institute (CA-87969, P01CA087969)
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 isolation, survival, mortality, confidants, social ties, caregiving, health care access, Nurses' Health Study
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Breast Neoplasms, Female, Humans, Middle Aged, Prospective Studies, Social Isolation, Social Support, United States, Confounding Factors, Epidemiologic, Survival Rate, Multivariate Analysis, Proportional Hazards Models, Survival Analysis, Risk Assessment, Community Networks

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