Breast Cancer Research and Treatment

, Volume 133, Issue 1, pp 375–385

Social networks, social support and burden in relationships, and mortality after breast cancer diagnosis

  • Candyce H. Kroenke
  • Yvonne Michael
  • Hilary Tindle
  • Elizabeth Gage
  • Rowan Chlebowski
  • Lorena Garcia
  • Catherine Messina
  • JoAnn E. Manson
  • Bette J. Caan


Though larger social networks are associated with reduced breast cancer mortality, there is a need to clarify how both social support and social burden influence this association. We included 4,530 women from the Women’s Health Initiative who were diagnosed with breast cancer between 1993 and 2009, and provided data on social networks (spouse or intimate partner, religious ties, club ties, and number of first-degree relatives) before diagnosis. Of those, 354 died during follow-up, with 190 from breast cancer. We used Cox proportional hazards regression to evaluate associations of social network members with risk of post-diagnosis mortality, further evaluating associations by social support and social burden (caregiving, social strain). In multivariate-adjusted analyses, among women with high but not low social support, being married was related to lower all-cause mortality. By contrast, among women with high but not low social burden, those with a higher number of first-degree relatives, including siblings, parents, and children, had higher all-cause and breast cancer mortality (among caregivers: 0–3 relatives (ref), 4–5 relatives, HR = 1.47 (95% CI: 0.62–3.52), 6–9 relatives, HR = 2.08 (95% CI: 0.89–4.86), 10+ relatives, HR = 3.55 (95% CI: 1.35–9.33), P-continuous = 0.02, P-interaction = 0.008). The association by social strain was similar though it was not modified by level of social support. Other social network members were unrelated to mortality. Social relationships may have both adverse and beneficial influences on breast cancer survival. Clarifying these depends on understanding the context of women’s relationships.


Social networks Social support Social burden Social relationships Caregiving Stress Breast cancer Mortality Women 


  1. 1.
    Berkman L, Glass TA (2000) Social integration, social networks, social support, and health. In: Berkman L, Kawachi I (eds) Social epidemiology. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Beasley JM, Newcomb PA, Trentham-Dietz A, Hampton JM, Ceballos RM, Titus-Ernstoff L, Egan KM, Holmes MD (2010) Social networks and survival after breast cancer diagnosis. J Cancer Surviv 4(4):372–380PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chou AF, Stewart SL, Wild RC, Bloom JR (2012) Social support and survival in young women with breast carcinoma. Psychooncology 21(2):125–133Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kroenke CH, Kubzansky LD, Schernhammer ES, Holmes MD, Kawachi I (2006) Social networks, social support, and survival after breast cancer diagnosis. J Clin Oncol 24(7):1105–1111PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Reynolds P, Boyd PT, Blacklow RS, Jackson JS, Greenberg RS, Austin DF, Chen VW, Edwards BK (1994) The relationship between social ties and survival among black and white breast cancer patients. National Cancer Institute Black/White Cancer Survival Study Group. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev 3(3):253–259Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Waxler-Morrison N, Hislop TG, Mears B, Kan L (1991) Effects of social relationships on survival for women with breast cancer: a prospective study. Soc Sci Med 33(2):177–183PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pinquart M, Duberstein PR (2011) Associations of social networks with cancer mortality: a meta-analysis. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 75(2):122–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Berkman LF, Syme SL (1979) Social networks, host resistance, and mortality: a nine-year follow-up study of Alameda County residents. Am J Epidemiol 109(2):186–204PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hirschman KB, Bourjolly JN (2005) How do tangible supports impact the breast cancer experience? Soc Work Health Care 41(1):17–32PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Woloshin S, Schwartz LM, Tosteson AN, Chang CH, Wright B, Plohman J, Fisher ES (1997) Perceived adequacy of tangible social support and health outcomes in patients with coronary artery disease. J Gen Intern Med 12(10):613–618PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Arno PS (2002) The economic value of informal caregiving, U.S., 2000. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry. Orlando, FloridaGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Arno PS, Levine C, Memmott MM (1999) The economic value of informal caregiving. Health Aff (Millwood) 18(2):182–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Brown SL, Smith DM, Schulz R, Kabeto MU, Ubel PA, Poulin M, Yi J, Kim C, Langa KM (2009) Caregiving behavior is associated with decreased mortality risk. Psychol Sci 20(4):488–494PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kiecolt-Glaser JK, Glaser R, Shuttleworth EC, Dyer CS, Ogrocki P, Speicher CE (1987) Chronic stress and immunity in family caregivers of Alzheimer’s disease victims. Psychosom Med 49(5):523–535PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cannuscio CC, Jones C, Kawachi I, Colditz GA, Berkman L, Rimm E (2002) Reverberations of family illness: a longitudinal assessment of informal caregiving and mental health status in the nurses’ health study. Am J Public Health 92(8):1305–1311PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lee S, Kawachi I, Grodstein F (2004) Does caregiving stress affect cognitive function in older women? J Nerv Ment Dis 192(1):51–57PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lee S, Colditz G, Berkman L, Kawachi I (2003) Caregiving to children and grandchildren and risk of coronary heart disease in women. Am J Public Health 93(11):1939–1944PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lee S, Colditz GA, Berkman LF, Kawachi I (2003) Caregiving and risk of coronary heart disease in U.S. women: a prospective study. Am J Prev Med 24(2):113–119PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schulz R, Beach SR (1999) Caregiving as a risk factor for mortality: the caregiver health effects study. JAMA 282(23):2215–2219PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Adam EK, Gunnar MR (2001) Relationship functioning and home and work demands predict individual differences in diurnal cortisol patterns in women. Psychoneuroendocrinology 26(2):189–208PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sephton SE, Sapolsky RM, Kraemer HC, Spiegel D (2000) Diurnal cortisol rhythm as a predictor of breast cancer survival. J Natl Cancer Inst 92(12):994–1000PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Antonucci TC, Birditt KS, Webster NJ (2010) Social relations and mortality: a more nuanced approach. J Health Psychol 15(5):649–659PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Birditt K, Antonucci TC (2008) Life sustaining irritations? Relationship quality and mortality in the context of chronic illness. Soc Sci Med 67(8):1291–1299PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    White LK, Riedmann A (1992) Ties among adult siblings. Soc Forces 71(1):85–102Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wellman B, Wortley S (1990) Different strokes from different folks: community ties and social support. Am J Sociol 96(3):558–588CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Adams RG, Blieszner R (1995) Aging well with friends and family. Am Behav Sci 39:209–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Matthews KA, Shumaker SA, Bowen DJ, Langer RD, Hunt JR, Kaplan RM, Klesges RC, Ritenbaugh C (1997) Women’s health initiative. Why now? What is it? What’s new? Am Psychol 52(2):101–116PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Women’s Health Initiative Study Group (1998) Design of the women’s health initiative clinical trial and observational study. The Women’s Health Initiative Study Group. Control Clin Trials 19(1):61–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hays J, Hunt JR, Hubbell FA, Anderson GL, Limacher M, Allen C, Rossouw JE (2003) The women’s health initiative recruitment methods and results. Ann Epidemiol 13(9 Suppl):S18–S77PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Curb JD, McTiernan A, Heckbert SR, Kooperberg C, Stanford J, Nevitt M, Johnson KC, Proulx-Burns L, Pastore L, Criqui M et al (2003) Outcomes ascertainment and adjudication methods in the Women’s Health Initiative. Ann Epidemiol 13(9 Suppl):S122–S128Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Cunningham J, Hankey B, Lyles B, Percy C, Ries L, Seiffert J et al. (1992) The SEER Program Code Manual. Revised Edition. Cancer Statistics Branch, Surveillance Program, Division of Cancer Prevention and Control, National Cancer InstituteGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sherbourne CD, Stewart AL (1991) The MOS social support survey. Soc Sci Med 32(6):705–714PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Hardy SE, Concato J, Gill TM (2004) Resilience of community-dwelling older persons. J Am Geriatr Soc 52(2):257–262PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Messina CR, Lane DS, Glanz K, West DS, Taylor V, Frishman W, Powell L (2004) Relationship of social support and social burden to repeated breast cancer screening in the women’s health initiative. Health Psychol 23(6):582–594PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Antonucci TC, Kahn RL, Akiyama H (1989) Psychosocial factors and the response to cancer symptoms. In: Yancik R, Yates JW (eds) Cancer in the elderly: Approaches to early detection and treatment. Springer Publishing Co., New York, pp 40–52Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Cox D (1972) Regression models and life-tables. J R Stat Soc (B) 34:187–220Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Cupples LA, D’Agostino RB, Anderson K, Kannel WB (1988) Comparison of baseline and repeated measure covariate techniques in the Framingham heart study. Stat Med 7(1–2):205–222PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Kroenke CH, Chen WY, Rosner B, Holmes MD (2005) Weight, weight gain, and survival after breast cancer diagnosis. J Clin Oncol 23(7):1370–1378PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Holmes MD, Chen WY, Feskanich D, Kroenke CH, Colditz GA (2005) Physical activity and survival after breast cancer diagnosis. JAMA 293(20):2479–2486PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Irwin ML, McTiernan A, Manson JE, Thomson CA, Sternfeld B, Stefanick ML, Wactawski-Wende J, Craft L, Lane D, Martin LW et al (2011) Physical activity and survival in postmenopausal women with breast cancer: results from the women’s health initiative. Cancer Prev Res (Phila) 4(4):522–529CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Candyce H. Kroenke
    • 1
  • Yvonne Michael
    • 2
  • Hilary Tindle
    • 3
  • Elizabeth Gage
    • 4
  • Rowan Chlebowski
    • 5
  • Lorena Garcia
    • 6
  • Catherine Messina
    • 7
  • JoAnn E. Manson
    • 8
  • Bette J. Caan
    • 9
  1. 1.Kaiser Permanente, Division of ResearchOaklandUSA
  2. 2.Department of Epidemiology and BiostatisticsDrexel University School of Public HealthPhiladelphiaUSA
  3. 3.Division of General Internal MedicineUniversity of PittsburghPittsburghUSA
  4. 4.School of Public HealthUniversity at Buffalo, State University of New YorkBuffaloUSA
  5. 5.David Geffen School of MedicineUniversity of CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA
  6. 6.School of MedicineUniversity of CaliforniaDavisUSA
  7. 7.Department of Preventive MedicineStony Brook UniversityStony BrookUSA
  8. 8.Division of Preventive MedicineBrigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical SchoolBostonUSA
  9. 9.Kaiser Permanente, Division of ResearchOaklandUSA

Personalised recommendations