Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Personality predicts perceived availability of social support and satisfaction with social support in women with early stage breast cancer

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Supportive Care in Cancer Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Goals of work

This study examines the relationships between personality, on the one hand, and perceived availability of social support (PASS) and satisfaction with received social support (SRSS), on the other hand, in women with early stage breast cancer (BC). In addition, this study examined whether a stressful event (i.e., diagnosis) is associated with quality of life (QOL), when controlling for PASS and SRSS.

Patients and method

Women were assessed on PASS and SRSS (World Health Organization QOL assessment instrument-100) before diagnosis (time 1) and 1 (time 2), 3 (time 3), 6 (time 4), 12 (time 5), and 24 months (time 6) after surgical treatment. Personality (neuroticism extraversion openness five-factor inventory and state trait anxiety inventory-trait scale) and fatigue (fatigue assessment scale) were assessed at time 1.

Main results

Agreeableness and fatigue predicted PASS and SRSS at time 5 and time 6. Trait anxiety had a negative effect on SRSS (ß = −0.22, p < .05). In addition, having a job was negatively associated with SRSS (time 6, ß = −0.28, p < .05). Across time, women reported a decrease in PASS and SRSS. Path models, used to test whether PASS and/or SRSS functioned as mediators of the link between diagnosis and QOL, reached adequate fit.

Conclusions

Besides factors, like fatigue and having a job, personality factors substantially influence the way women with early stage BC perceive social support. Knowledge about these underlying mechanisms of social support is useful for the development of tailor-made interventions. Professionals should be aware of the importance of social support. They should check whether patients have sufficient significant others in their social environment and be sensitive to potential discrepancies patients might experience between availability and adequacy of social support.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Netherlands Cancer Registry (2005) Most prevalent cancer types [Meest voorkomende kankersoorten]. In: http://www.ikcnet.nl/page.php?id=1868&nav_id=114

  2. SignaleringscommissieKanker (2004) Cancer in the Netherlands. Trends, prognosis, and implications for care demands [Kanker in Nederland. Trends, prognoses en implicaties voor zorgvraag]. KWF Kankerbestrijding, Amsterdam

  3. Burgess C, Cornelius V, Love S, Graham J, Richards M, Ramirez A (2005) Depression and anxiety in women with early breast cancer: five year observational cohort study. BMJ 330(7493):702

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Friedman LC, Kalidas M, Elledge R, Chang J, Romero C, Husain I et al (2006) Optimism, social support and psychosocial functioning among women with breast cancer. Psycho-oncology 15:595–603

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Helgeson VS (2003) Social support and quality of life. Qual Life Res 12(Suppl 1):25–31

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Hann D, Baker F, Denniston M, Gesme D, Reding D, Flynn T et al (2002) The influence of social support on depressive symptoms in cancer patients: age and gender differences. J Psychosom Res 52:279–283

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Weihs KL, Enright TM, Simmens SJ (2008) Close relationships and emotional processing predict decreased mortality in women with breast cancer: preliminary evidence. Psychosom Med 70:117–124

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Weihs KL, Simmens SJ, Mizrahi J, Enright TM, Hunt ME, Siegel RS (2005) Dependable social relationships predict overall survival in Stages II and III breast carcinoma patients. J Psychosom Res 59:299–306

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 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):1105–1111

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Cassileth BR, Lusk EJ, Miller DS, Brown LL, Miller C (1985) Psychosocial correlates of survival in advanced malignant disease? N Engl J Med 312:1551–1555

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Manning-Walsh J (2005) Social support as a mediator between symptom distress and quality of life in women with breast cancer. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs 34:482–493

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Lewis JA, Manne SL, DuHamel KN, Vickburg SM, Bovbjerg DH, Currie V et al (2001) Social support, intrusive thoughts, and quality of life in breast cancer survivors. J Behav Med 24:231–245

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Ogce F, Ozkan S, Baltalarli B (2007) Psychosocial stressors, social support and socio-demographic variables as determinants of quality of life of Turkish breast cancer patients. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 8:77–82

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Karnell LH, Christensen AJ, Rosenthal EL, Magnuson JS, Funk GF (2007) Influence of social support on health-related quality of life outcomes in head and neck cancer. Head Neck 29:143–146

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Sammarco A (2001) Perceived social support, uncertainty, and quality of life of younger breast cancer survivors. Cancer Nurs 24:212–219

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Michael YL, Berkman LF, Colditz GA, Holmes MD, Kawachi I (2002) Social networks and health-related quality of life in breast cancer survivors: a prospective study. J Psychosom Res 52:285–293

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Cutrona CE (1986) Objective determinants of perceived social support. J Pers Soc Psychol 50(2):349–355

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Courtens AM, Stevens FC, Crebolder HF, Philipsen H (1996) Longitudinal study on quality of life and social support in cancer patients. Cancer Nurs 19:162–169

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Roberts S, Wilson R, Fedurek P, Dunbar R (2008) Individual differences and personal social network size and structure. Pers Individ Differ 44:954–964

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Swickert R, Rosentreter C, Hittner J, Mushrush J (2002) Extraversion, social support, and stress. Pers Individ Differ 32:877–891

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Bowling N, Beehr T, Swader W (2005) Giving and receiving social support at work: the roles of personality and reciprocity. J Vocat Behav 67:476–489

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Russell D, Booth B, Reed D, Laughin P (1997) Personality, social networks, and perceived social support among alcoholics: a structural equation analysis. J Pers 65:649–692

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Hoth KF, Christensen AJ, Ehlers SL, Raichle KA, Lawton WJ (2007) A longitudinal examination of social support, agreeableness and depressive symptoms in chronic kidney disease. J Behav Med 30:69–76

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Deisinger J, Cassisi J, Withaker S (2003) Relationships between coping style and PAI profiles in a community sample. J Clin Psychol 59:1315–1323

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Hobson JA, Slade P, Wrench IJ, Power L (2006) Preoperative anxiety and postoperative satisfaction in women undergoing elective caesarean section. Int J Obstet Anesth 15:18–23

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Curt GA, Breitbart W, Cella D, Groopman JE, Horning SJ, Itri LM et al (2000) Impact of cancer-related fatigue on the lives of patients: new findings from the Fatigue Coalition. Oncologist 5(5):353–360

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Diaz N, Menjon S, Rolfo C, Garcia-Alonso P, Carulla J, Magro A et al (2008) Patients’ perception of cancer-related fatigue: results of a survey to assess the impact on their everyday life. Clin Transl Oncol 10(11):753–757

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. WHOQOL group (1995) The World Health Organization Quality of Life assessment (WHOQOL): position paper from the World Health Organization. Soc Sci Med 41:1403–1409

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. WHOQOL Group (1998) The World Health Organization Quality of Life Assessment (WHOQOL): development and general psychometric properties. Soc Sci Med 46:1569–1585

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Radloff LS (1977) The CES-D scale: a self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Appl Psychol Meas 1:385–401

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Michielsen HJ, De Vries J, Van Heck GL (2003) Psychometric qualities of a brief self-rated fatigue measure: the fatigue assessment scale. J Psychosom Res 54(4):345–352

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Costa PT, McCrae RR (1985) The NEO personality inventory manual. Psychological Assessment Resources Inc., Odessa, FL

    Google Scholar 

  33. Costa PT, McCrae RR (1992) Revised NEO personality inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO five factor inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Psychological Assessment Resources Inc., Odessa, FL

    Google Scholar 

  34. Spielberger CD, Gorsuch RL, Lushene RE (1970) STAI manual for the state-trait anxiety inventory. Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo-Alto, CA

    Google Scholar 

  35. De Vries J, Van Heck GL (1997) The World Health Organization quality of life assessment instrument (WHOQOL-100): validation study with the Dutch version. Eur J Psychol Assess 13:164–178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Power M, Harper A, Bullinger M (1999) The World Health Organization WHOQOL-100: tests of the universality of quality of life in 15 different cultural groups worldwide. Health Psychol 18:495–505

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Den Oudsten BL, Van Heck GL, Van der Steeg AF, Roukema JA, De Vries J (2009) The WHOQOL-100 has good psychometric properties in breast cancer patients. J Clin Epidemiol 62(2):195–205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. O’Carroll RE, Smith K, Couston M, Cossar JA, Hayes PC (2000) A comparison of the WHOQOL-100 and the WHOQOL-BREF in detecting change in quality of life following liver transplantation. Qual Life Res 9:121–124

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Hann D, Winter K, Jacobsen P (1999) Measurement of depressive symptoms in cancer patients: evaluation of the Center for Epidemiological Studies depression scale (CES-D). J Psychosom Res 46(5):437–443

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. De Rijk AE, Schreurs KMG, Bensing JM (1999) What is behind “I’m so tired”? Fatigue experiences and their relations to the quality and quantity of external stimulation. J Psychosom Res 47:509–523

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Beekman AT, Deeg DJ, Van Limbeek J, Braam AW, De Vries MZ, Van Tilburg W (1997) Criterion validity of the Center for Epidemiologic Studies depression scale (CES-D): results from a community-based sample of older subjects in The Netherlands. Psychol Med 27:231–235

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. De Vries J, Michielsen H, Van Heck GL, Drent M (2004) Measuring fatigue in sarcoidosis: the fatigue assessment scale (FAS). Br J Health Psychol 9(Pt 3):279–291

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Michielsen HJ, De Vries J, Drent M, Peros-Golubicic T (2005) Psychometric qualities of the fatigue assessment scale in Croatian sarcoidosis patients. Sarcoidosis Vasc Diffuse Lung Dis 22(2):133–138

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Michielsen H, De Vries J, van Heck GL, Van de Vijver A, Sijtsma K (2004) Examination of the dimensionality of fatigue: the construction of the fatigue assessment scale (FAS). Eur J Psychol Assess 20:39–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Van der Ploeg HM, Defares PB, Spielberger CD (1980) ZBV: a Dutch-language adaptation of the Spielberger state-trait anxiety inventory. Swets & Zeitlinger, Lisse, The Netherlands

    Google Scholar 

  46. Hoekstra H, Ormel J, De Fruyt F (1996) Handleiding NEO persoonlijkheidsvragenlijsten NEO-PI-R en NEO-FFI [Manual NEO personality questionnaires NEO-PI-R and NEO-FFI]. Swets Test Services, Lisse, The Netherlands

    Google Scholar 

  47. Stevens J (2002) Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences Mahwah. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  48. Cohen J (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, vol 2nd. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  49. Preacher KJ, Hayes AF (2004) SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behav Res Meth Instrum Comput 36(4):717–731

    Google Scholar 

  50. Hu L, Bentler PM (1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Modeling 6:1–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Jensen-Campbell LA, Graziano WG (2001) Agreeableness as a moderator of interpersonal conflict. J Pers 69:323–361

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Finch JF, Graziano WG (2001) Predicting depression from temperament, personality, and patterns of social relations. J Pers 69:27–55

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Branje SJ, Van Lieshout CF, Van Aken MA (2004) Relations between Big Five personality characteristics and perceived support in adolescents’ families. J Pers Soc Psychol 86:615–628

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Ferrell BR, Grant MM, Funk B, Otis-Green S, Garcia N (1997) Quality of life in breast cancer survivors as identified by focus groups. Psycho-oncology 6:13–23

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Lim JW, Zebrack B (2008) Different pathways in social support and quality of life between Korean American and Korean breast and gynecological cancer survivors. Qual Life Res 17(5):679–689

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Cohen S, Wills TA (1985) Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis. Psychol Bull 98(2):310–357

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Scheier MF, Helgeson VS, Schulz R, Colvin S, Berga SL, Knapp J et al (2007) Moderators of interventions designed to enhance physical and psychological functioning among younger women with early-stage breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 25(36):5710–5714

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Medical Psychology, CoRPS, Center of Research on Psychology in Somatic Diseases, Tilburg University, P.O. Box 90153, 5000, LE, Tilburg, The Netherlands

    Brenda L. Den Oudsten, Guus L. Van Heck, Jan A. Roukema & Jolanda De Vries

  2. Scientific Centre for Transformation in Care and Welfare (TRANZO), Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands

    Guus L. Van Heck

  3. Pediatric Surgical Center of Amsterdam, Emma Children’s Hospital AMC and VU Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Alida F. W. Van der Steeg

  4. Department of Surgery, St. Elisabeth Hospital, Tilburg, The Netherlands

    Jan A. Roukema

  5. Department of Medical Psychology, St. Elisabeth Hospital, Tilburg, The Netherlands

    Jolanda De Vries

Authors
  1. Brenda L. Den Oudsten
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Guus L. Van Heck
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Alida F. W. Van der Steeg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jan A. Roukema
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jolanda De Vries
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Brenda L. Den Oudsten.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Den Oudsten, B.L., Van Heck, G.L., Van der Steeg, A.F.W. et al. Personality predicts perceived availability of social support and satisfaction with social support in women with early stage breast cancer. Support Care Cancer 18, 499–508 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-009-0714-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-009-0714-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation