Published on in Vol 8, No 2 (2022): Apr-Jun

Preprints (earlier versions) of this paper are available at, first published .
Optimizing Social Support in Oncology with Digital Platforms

Optimizing Social Support in Oncology with Digital Platforms

Optimizing Social Support in Oncology with Digital Platforms


1Matchstick LLC, Boonton, NJ, United States

2College of Pharmacy, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI, United States

3Massachusetts College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences, Worcester, MA, United States

Corresponding Author:

Dimos Katsaros, PharmD

Matchstick LLC

715 Main Street, 2nd Floor

Boonton, NJ, 07005

United States

Phone: 1 5086491222


Increased cancer prevalence and survival rates coupled with earlier patient discharges from hospitals have created a greater need for social support. Cancer care is both short term and long term, requiring acute treatments, treatments for remission, and long-term screenings and treatment regimens. Health care systems are already overwhelmed and often struggle to provide social support systems for everyone. Caregivers are limited in number, and even when they are available, they often lack necessary information, skills, or resources to meet the needs of patients with cancer. The act of caregiving presents various challenges, and caregivers themselves often need social support as well. Despite these needs, most social support programs are targeted toward patients alone. Given the prevalence of cancer and known needs of these patients and their caregivers, the ability to identify those who need social support is crucial. Further, the scalability and overall availability of social support programs is vital for successful patient care. This paper establishes the benefits of social support for both patients and caregivers coping with cancer treatments, explores innovative ways of identifying patients who may need social support using digital tools, and reviews potential advantages of digital social support programs.

JMIR Cancer 2022;8(2):e36258



Life expectancy in the United States has risen over 66% in the past century due, in part, to medical advancements [1]. Importantly, the fastest growing segment includes those aged 65 years and over, with the number of older adults worldwide in 2015 projected to more than double by 2050 [2]. Extended life expectancy has coincided with a steady rise in chronic disease, with incidence rates increasing by 7 to 8 million every 5 years for the past two decades [3].

Advancements in diagnostics and therapeutics have resulted in an increased number of cancer survivors [4]. Cancer is no longer strictly an acute disease; over the next decade, nearly 40% of patients diagnosed with cancer are expected to live greater than or equal to 5 years after diagnosis [4]. With patients living longer, cancer treatment is now often chronic in nature, requiring ongoing care and support for long-term management [5]. Despite advancements in treatments, however, cancer remains a leading cause of both death and disability worldwide [6,7]. Notably, the reported figures from 2020 may be a gross underestimation due to the debilitating effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer screenings, diagnoses, and treatments. As a result, the coming years may show an even greater uptick in cancer incidence and mortality rates on a global level [6].

Social restrictions during the COVID-19 pandemic have drawn attention to the impact of social support, and lack thereof, on mental health in the general population [8]. However, the particular importance of social support for patients with chronic disease has been long established. In this context, social support is multifaceted and consists of providing patients with emotional, information, or practical support. Social support may come from various sources, such as family, friends, partners, and health care professionals [9]. Social support that comes from casual interactions with family, friends, or peers is often called informal social support, while support that comes from professional services, such as a nurses, physicians, or social workers, is considered formal social support [10].

While formalized social support programs exist, their use is not widespread among patients with cancer. Commonly cited reasons for underuse of formal social support programs include lack of awareness of existence among patients, absence of recommendation from physicians, practical constraints, and financial barriers. Further, formal social support programs are generally used more frequently by White, female, and higher-educated individuals, leading to further underuse by minority groups [11].

With formal social support having many barriers to use, patients often turn to their social network for informal social support [11]. Informal social support has been shown to impact clinical outcomes, including morbidity and mortality, as well as psychological outcomes, such as mood, mental health, and quality of life (QoL) [12-19]. For many patients with cancer, however, casual social interactions are not enough and, in turn, many patients rely on their caregiver for these interactions. Increased cancer prevalence and survival rates coupled with earlier hospital discharges to conserve financial resources have created an even larger and more important role for caregivers [6,20]. However, caregivers often lack necessary information, skills, or resources to meet the needs of patients with cancer and often need to cope with the significant emotional burden associated with caring for such patients [20,21]. Thus, caregivers must also be considered when discussing the importance of social support in cancer.

Considering these factors, a newfound structure for social support that encompasses both patients and caregivers will be essential to ensure quality and scalability of cancer care. With potential increases in global cancer incidence, prevalence, and mortality in the coming decades, achieving adequate social support may require leveraging digital tools that can proactively meet patient and caregiver needs. This paper seeks to summarize the importance of social support in chronic disease, outline its different components, suggest the use of digital biomarkers to identify patients who need social support, establish the advantages of digital social support programs, and review currently available digital modalities of social support for patients and caregivers in the oncology space.

While prior literature has defined social support in different ways, it is often comprised of three main facets: emotional, practical, and informational support [22-25]. These aspects of social support are summarized in Table 1. Emotional support focuses on expressing empathy and compassion to patients and caregivers, and fostering the sentiment that they are not alone in their experiences. Practical support fulfills the physical needs that patients or caregivers may have, such as transportation to the hospital or picking up medications. Informational support involves sharing education or tips about managing the disease state with patients or caregivers. As mentioned previously, social support can come via formal support programs or informal support from friends, families, or peers. While formal medical information should come from health care providers (HCPs), a patient’s peers can provide valuable information, such as what to expect with certain treatments, particularly if the peer has the same chronic disease. Patients are not medical experts, but they often have valuable personal experiences from coping with disease that many providers may not.

Table 1. Major aspects of social support.
Major aspects of social supportDescription
Emotional and physiologicalEmpathy, encouragement, and reassurance
PracticalSupport with physical needs of daily living
InformationalPersonal experiences, tips, and facts

The clinical complexity of a cancer diagnosis poses a significant burden on patients. However, burden is not solely related to clinical complexity but is also a function of the dynamic interplay between personal, social, and clinical aspects of a patient’s experience [26]. Thus, even if therapeutics have favorable side effect profiles and minimal disruption to patients’ lives, the social aspect of a cancer diagnosis could pose a significant burden. A recent large-scale analysis found that nearly 40% of patients with chronic disease reported that they are unable to sustain their current investments of energy, time, and money into health care lifelong [27]. As patients with chronic diseases often have complex care plans that can be discouraging and difficult to manage independently, social support may play a crucial role in helping them be successful and feel less overwhelmed in trying to cope with their disease. Moreover, chronic disease is also associated with a higher risk of mental health conditions, such as depression and anxiety, which can limit patients’ activity levels and social interactions [28].

Given the known challenges associated with managing chronic conditions, several studies have sought to understand the potential benefits of providing social support services in this setting [10-14]. One study of older adults with diabetes found that greater social support was associated with less stress, lower rates of depression, and reduced risk of myocardial infarction. Further, social support was also associated with fewer impairments in activities of daily living (eg, eating, drinking, bathing, and dressing) and instrumental activities of daily living (eg, using the telephone, transportation, laundry, and finances) [13]. Another large-scale meta-analysis found that greater perceived social support had a protective impact on mortality of up to 66% [17]. The same analysis found that a greater social network, such as regularly seeing friends and family members, can reduce the risk of mortality up to 70% [17].

While once not considered a chronic disease, improvements in diagnostics and therapeutics have transformed cancer into a condition requiring long-term care and support [5]. Compared to other diseases, cancer may be far more demanding and may, therefore, require a higher degree of social support [29]. Patients with cancer and their caregivers often cope with convoluted treatment plans, regimens associated with significant toxicities, symptom and side effect management, high disease severity, higher care costs, and more stressful decision-making [29]. Along with physical and medical impacts, a cancer diagnosis often brings along a heavy emotional burden; the prevalence of both depression and anxiety are significantly higher in patients with cancer [30]. Prognosis, pain levels, body image disruption, and tumor- or treatment-related side effects can all heavily impact a patient’s psychological state [30].

The importance of social support for patients with cancer is well recognized, as current clinical guidelines recommend the incorporation of social support into oncology patients’ care plans to help mitigate the distress associated with their disease [31].

Patients with cancer commonly express a desire for social support, as one study found patients often requested companionship, empathy, and home care support. More specifically, companionship was requested by nearly half of patients [32]. Beyond just a desire for social support, numerous studies have specifically demonstrated the benefit of social support services for patients with cancer. In terms of emotional benefit, providing social support has been shown to lessen feelings of anxiety and depression associated with the disease [33,34]. Social support has also been shown to have tangible outcomes, including increased medication adherence. In a prospective study of women with breast cancer, greater social support during oral endocrine therapy initiation was associated with higher rates of adherence and fewer depressive symptoms [35]. The costs associated with medication nonadherence in the United States is estimated to be US $100 billion to $290 billion, and nonadherence to cancer therapies is reported to be significantly higher than that of other disease states [36]. Thus, improving medication adherence among patients with cancer could have significant implications for reducing health care costs.

Beyond medication adherence, social support has been associated with improved physical and emotional health, well-being, and overall survival in patients with cancer [37]. One meta-analysis of 87 studies found a 12% to 25% reduction in relative mortality in patients with high levels of perceived social support and large social networks as well as in those who were married [38]. Social networks can also have a significant impact on overall QoL. One study of over 3000 breast cancer survivors found that larger social networks were associated with statistically significant higher QoL. More specifically, the study found that “the availability of someone with whom to have fun, relax, and get one’s mind off things for a while” had the strongest association with QoL improvement [39]. Despite the established benefit, formal social support is not widely adopted in clinical practice. One study found that only 8% of patients reported attending a cancer support group, and almost 60% of patients did not know where to find a group [11]. While HCPs commonly recommend patient support programs, they often do not give direct recommendations on where to find such programs. Further, certain demographics, such as patients living in distant or rural areas, reported less use of social groups [11]. While support groups may be beneficial for such patients, the current infrastructure of physical support groups renders them impractical for many patients, and new approaches to provide social support are warranted.

Given the rise in cancer prevalence and desire for more convenient treatments, a significant proportion of cancer care has shifted to the outpatient setting [2,7,40]. New oncologic agents have facilitated this transition, as they are more targeted and less invasive, making outpatient administration feasible [40]. While this offers more freedom to patients, it may place a larger strain on caregivers who are often relied on by many cancer patients for logistical support, including assistance with treatments, home care, and other tasks of daily living. These caregivers are frequently family members or friends who are not paid for the services they provide [41]. Along with the difficulty of performing complex care tasks with little to no training, a heavy emotional burden is placed on the shoulders of these informal caregivers, which in and of itself has been associated with increased mortality risk. One study found that older adult spousal caregivers who were experiencing caregiver strain had a 63% increase in 4-year mortality compared to a control group matched for age and sex who did not provide caregiving [42].

Moreover, approximately 9% of informal caregivers report having nobody to talk to about private matters. This feeling of isolation is exacerbated in millennial caregivers, with 27% indicating that they are not satisfied with the quality of their social relationships, and with 2 out of 10 reporting that they do not see any of their friends in a given month [21]. Fewer social connections and lower satisfaction with social support also significantly predicted depressive symptoms among caregivers, especially women [21]. Further, caregivers who are socially isolated are at greater risk of experiencing difficulties with complex care [21]. Although social support interventions are available for caregivers of patients with cancer, an estimated one-third of caregivers fail to ask for support when they need it [43].

The psychosocial burden of cancer can be overwhelming, and many patients may not have a support system to help them cope with the emotional aspects of the disease. Unfortunately, psychosocial complications are common in patients with cancer [44]. Concerningly, many patients suffering from psychosocial comorbidities are not adequately treated. One study found that 73% of patients with cancer were not receiving potentially effective treatment to manage their depression, and only 5% were seeing a mental health professional [45].

Many of these patients with psychosocial burdens may not have access to informal social support, let alone formal social support. As cancer disproportionately affects the geriatric population, older adults often have a reduced network accessible for social support due to life cycle events, such as retirement, death of loved ones, and biological effects of aging (eg, new sensory impairments and worsening chronic illnesses) [46]. Social isolation and lack of perceived socio-emotional support can be detrimental to patient health, as studies have shown that social isolation can lead to reduced QoL and increased morbidity and mortality among patients with cancer [39,47,48].

These psychosocial burdens of cancer often go unaddressed but have a significant impact on the economic cost of cancer. One systematic review estimated the monetized lifetime psychosocial cost burden of cancer care in Canada, as measured by health-related QoL costs, to be CAD $427,753 to $528,769 (US $320,815 to $396,577), which represents approximately two-thirds of the economic cost of cancer [49]. Unlike clinical burden, psychosocial burden is less tangible and, thus, more difficult to identify, quantify, and formally diagnose [50]. Thus, patients with high needs for social support may not be identified early enough or, in some cases, at all. Moreover, there may be great interpersonal variation in psychosocial burden, even within patient populations with the same diagnosis. Identifying patients with high psychosocial burdens and proactively providing social support could improve the lives of patients and significantly decrease the economic burden associated with cancer.

Digital biomarkers are objective measurements of physiological, pathologic, or anatomic characteristics continuously collected outside the clinical environment via home-based connected devices [51]. Passively collecting data from patients’ mobile or wearable devices potentially offers a convenient and unobtrusive method to prospectively identify psychosocial burden and deliver tailored social support to the right patients at the right time. To our knowledge, digital biomarkers are not currently used to identify social support needs specific to cancer. However, they have been successfully used to identify depression, anxiety, and stress, all of which are common psychosocial complications of cancer [52-54].

One study examined the use of algorithms incorporating digital trace data, such as device location and phone usage, along with voice data from mobile devices to identify behavioral indicators of clinically validated symptoms of depression and posttraumatic stress disorder [52]. The behavioral indicators that were measured included depressed mood most the day, diminished interest or pleasure in all or most activities, fatigue or loss of energy, and avoidance of activities, places, or people. Digital biomarkers have also been used to identify mood disorders, such as major depressive disorder and bipolar disorder. Data on patient movement, captured over 2 weeks, was able to successfully predict diagnosis status of a mood disorder 89% of the time [53]. Another study combined passively collected data about patient movement, using accelerometers, and social contact, using calls and texts, over 2 weeks with machine learning models to predict social anxiety symptom severity [53]. Social anxiety is particularly important in the field of cancer, as it has been referred to as a hidden psychiatric comorbidity in patients with cancer [54]. While less specific, the use of smartwatches, rings, body patches, body scales, and vests can provide physiological proxies of the autonomic nervous stress response, such as resting heart rate, electrodermal activity, cortisol levels, and inflammatory cytokines [55]. Real-time tracking of these objective measures of stress could help identify patients who need social support and help providers monitor patients’ stress throughout therapy. Overall, given the high prevalence of mood disorders in patients with cancer, the ability to diagnose psychosocial comorbidities at scale using digital tools could be a crucial means to deliver both social and pharmacologic interventions. This approach could potentially identify patients in need sooner, alleviate the workload required to diagnose psychosocial burdens in current practice, and reduce associated health care use.

Although support in the form of in-person interventions represents a significant portion of the social support provided, in-person programs may not be suitable for many patients. While in-person interventions have known benefits, accessibility to in-person social support groups is not always possible. Transportation, awareness of programs, the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, or program availability could still hinder a patient’s ability to attend physical social support groups. Further, the growing number of patients with cancer is greatly outpacing the capacity for care of the current health care system [56]. The health care system may not be able to physically provide social support for all patients that need it. New social support methods must be flexible enough to allow broad patient and caregiver access despite these limitations.

Unlike physical social support programs, digital support programs offer the potential for continuous access from the comfort of a patient’s home without the presence of a physical HCP. While digital support programs may not have been broadly accessible a decade ago, the widespread adoption of computers and smartphones across almost every demographic in the United States enables access for the vast majority of patients with cancer [57]. Digital support programs have the potential to compensate for diminishing face-to-face physical interactions, while always providing an avenue for social support. Social media platforms have historically been used as outlets toward informal social support. Forum-style Facebook groups offer patients the opportunity to connect and form relationships with others who may have gone through or are going through similar experiences. Many platforms also allow users to form or join specific groups. These groups allow patients to find and interact with each other informally and in real time. Importantly, these platforms enable asynchronous interactions with other patients, giving them flexibility depending on when they want social support or can invest time into social support. Further, specific groups can be made within these platforms to support minority groups to overcome language or cultural barriers.

While social media platforms offer theoretical benefits, their impact on patients is highly variable. A systematic review found that while 48% of studies indicated benefits from social media platforms, 45% found the effects to be neutral, and 7% of studies actually suggested harm from their use [58]. Still, both patients with cancer and their caregivers have expressed that they wish to use social media for the purpose of both social and emotional support. In one study, caregivers specifically expressed that they wanted to form connections with other caregivers in similar situations with which to share experiences and information [59]. With that said, social media platforms also pose risks to patients and caregivers, including possible privacy and confidentiality concerns, no regulation to ensure that accurate medical information is conveyed, a propagation of negative health behaviors, and information overload [60]. Further, many groups on social media platforms may be hidden, hard to find, or private, which may make it difficult for all patients to benefit. A platform targeted for digital social support in oncology must protect health care information, increase awareness of social support, and improve accessibility to digital social support.

With smartphones and wearable connected devices now ubiquitous, using these devices for data collection is easier than ever to employ from a technological standpoint. Still, collected data must also be systematically translated into useful information for clinicians. Simply providing biomarkers to already-burdened providers will likely not amount to advancements in care delivery. Further research is needed to identify specific algorithms encompassing particular sets of biomarkers that can accurately identify psychosocial burdens in patients with cancer, while limiting required interventions from HCPs.

Once those who require social support are identified, flexible programs must be made available without relying on particular channels (eg, in-person support groups), as these may isolate certain patients or caregivers. Creating both accessible and scalable social support programs will be crucial to accommodate the rise in cancer diagnosis and to decrease the psychosocial impact of cancer on patients and their caregivers. Physical social support programs have established benefits, but these programs also have limitations, such as transportation, pandemic-related concerns, fixed group meeting times, and finite availability. Digital platforms can avoid these limitations and increase availability and accessibility of social support, even among minority groups.

Despite promise, funding for such digital biomarkers to identify social support needs, as well as the associated digital platforms to deliver social support, may be challenging. The economic benefit of providing social support through these avenues is not currently well established, and it is unclear whether health care payers would support new digitally based programs. Targeted research that specifically identifies concrete clinical and economic value in digital social support programs to foster further development is needed.

Despite the established benefits of social support programs, their use among patients with cancer is not widespread. Patients often do not seek social support when they need it or may not even know they need social support. Patients and the health care system alike are in desperate need of a more efficient method of identifying patients who need social support. Digital biomarkers collected via mobile or wearable devices offer an innovative, yet relatively facile, way of identifying a subset of patients that need social support.

Although the need for social support in patients with cancer is high, the current infrastructure to provide social support is largely underdeveloped and unable to accommodate patient needs for support. Health care systems are already struggling with capacity limitations to provide care for all patients. Tailored digital platforms can provide accessible social support, without straining the already-burdened health care system.

Authors' Contributions

JH, DK, TA, and CF were responsible for conceptualization of the study and reviewed and edited the manuscript. DK, JH, JP, and KP prepared the original manuscript draft. CF and TA were responsible for supervision of the study. CF was responsible for project administration. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

None declared.

  1. Crimmins EM. Lifespan and healthspan: Past, present, and promise. Gerontologist 2015 Dec;55(6):901-911 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  2. Maresova P, Javanmardi E, Barakovic S, Barakovic Husic J, Tomsone S, Krejcar O, et al. Consequences of chronic diseases and other limitations associated with old age - A scoping review. BMC Public Health 2019 Nov 01;19(1):1431 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  3. Holman HR. The relation of the chronic disease epidemic to the health care crisis. ACR Open Rheumatol 2020 Mar;2(3):167-173 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  4. de Moor JS, Mariotto AB, Parry C, Alfano CM, Padgett L, Kent EE, et al. Cancer survivors in the United States: Prevalence across the survivorship trajectory and implications for care. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2013 Apr;22(4):561-570 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  5. Phillips JL, Currow DC. Cancer as a chronic disease. Collegian 2010;17(2):47-50. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  6. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Fuchs HE, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2021. CA Cancer J Clin 2021 Jan;71(1):7-33 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  7. Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, Laversanne M, Soerjomataram I, Jemal A, et al. Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin 2021 May;71(3):209-249 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  8. Li F, Luo S, Mu W, Li Y, Ye L, Zheng X, et al. Effects of sources of social support and resilience on the mental health of different age groups during the COVID-19 pandemic. BMC Psychiatry 2021 Jan 07;21(1):16 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  9. Ruiz-Rodríguez I, Hombrados-Mendieta I, Melguizo-Garín A, Martos-Méndez MJ. The association of sources of support, types of support and satisfaction with support received on perceived stress and quality of life of cancer patients. Integr Cancer Ther 2021;20:1-10 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  10. Shiba K, Kondo N, Kondo K. Informal and formal social support and caregiver burden: The AGES caregiver survey. J Epidemiol 2016 Dec 05;26(12):622-628 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  11. Sherman AC, Pennington J, Simonton S, Latif U, Arent L, Farley H. Determinants of participation in cancer support groups: The role of health beliefs. Int J Behav Med 2008;15(2):92-100. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  12. Ali SM, Merlo J, Rosvall M, Lithman T, Lindström M. Social capital, the miniaturisation of community, traditionalism and first time acute myocardial infarction: A prospective cohort study in southern Sweden. Soc Sci Med 2006 Oct;63(8):2204-2217. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  13. Zhang X, Norris SL, Gregg EW, Beckles G. Social support and mortality among older persons with diabetes. Diabetes Educ 2007;33(2):273-281. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  14. Thong MSY, Kaptein AA, Krediet RT, Boeschoten EW, Dekker FW. Social support predicts survival in dialysis patients. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2007 Mar;22(3):845-850. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  15. Rodríguez-Artalejo F, Guallar-Castillón P, Herrera MC, Otero CM, Chiva MO, Ochoa CC, et al. Social network as a predictor of hospital readmission and mortality among older patients with heart failure. J Card Fail 2006 Oct;12(8):621-627. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  16. Christian BJ, D'Auria JP. Building life skills for children with cystic fibrosis: Effectiveness of an intervention. Nurs Res 2006;55(5):300-307. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  17. Holt-Lunstad J, Smith TB, Layton JB. Social relationships and mortality risk: A meta-analytic review. PLoS Med 2010 Jul 27;7(7):e1000316 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  18. Uchino BN. Understanding the links between social support and physical health: A life-span perspective with emphasis on the separability of perceived and received support. Perspect Psychol Sci 2009 May;4(3):236-255. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  19. Thoits PA. Mechanisms linking social ties and support to physical and mental health. J Health Soc Behav 2011 Jun;52(2):145-161. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  20. Heynsbergh N, Botti M, Heckel L, Livingston PM. Caring for the person with cancer and the role of digital technology in supporting carers. Support Care Cancer 2019 Jun;27(6):2203-2209. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  21. Reinhard SC, Young HM, Levine C, Kelly K, Choula RB, Accius JC. Home Alone Revisited: Family Caregivers Providing Complex Care. Washington, DC: AARP Public Policy Institute; 2019.   URL: https:/​/www.​​content/​dam/​aarp/​ppi/​2019/​04/​home-alone-revisited-family-caregivers-providing-complex-care.​pdf [accessed 2021-11-20]
  22. Southwick SM, Sippel L, Krystal J, Charney D, Mayes L, Pietrzak R. Why are some individuals more resilient than others: The role of social support. World Psychiatry 2016 Feb;15(1):77-79 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  23. Ko H, Wang L, Xu Y. Understanding the different types of social support offered by audience to A-list diary-like and informative bloggers. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw 2013 Mar;16(3):194-199 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  24. Reblin M, Uchino BN. Social and emotional support and its implication for health. Curr Opin Psychiatry 2008 Mar;21(2):201-205 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  25. Strom JL, Egede LE. The impact of social support on outcomes in adult patients with type 2 diabetes: A systematic review. Curr Diab Rep 2012 Dec;12(6):769-781 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  26. Shippee ND, Shah ND, May CR, Mair FS, Montori VM. Cumulative complexity: A functional, patient-centered model of patient complexity can improve research and practice. J Clin Epidemiol 2012 Oct;65(10):1041-1051 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  27. Tran V, Montori VM, Ravaud P. Is my patient overwhelmed?: Determining thresholds for acceptable burden of treatment using data from the ComPaRe e-cohort. Mayo Clin Proc 2020 Mar;95(3):504-512. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  28. National Institute of Mental Health. Chronic Illness and Mental Health: Recognizing and Treating Depression. Bethesda, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health; 2021.   URL: https:/​/www.​​sites/​default/​files/​documents/​health/​publications/​chronic-illness-mental-health/​21-mh-8015-chronicillness-mentalhealth_1.​pdf [accessed 2021-11-21]
  29. Kent EE, Rowland JH, Northouse L, Litzelman K, Chou WS, Shelburne N, et al. Caring for caregivers and patients: Research and clinical priorities for informal cancer caregiving. Cancer 2016 Jul 01;122(13):1987-1995 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  30. Pitman A, Suleman S, Hyde N, Hodgkiss A. Depression and anxiety in patients with cancer. BMJ 2018 Apr 25;361:k1415. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  31. Riba MB, Donovan KA, Andersen B, Braun I, Breitbart WS, Brewer BW, et al. Distress Management, Version 3.2019, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2019 Oct 01;17(10):1229-1249 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  32. Korotkin BD, Hoerger M, Voorhees S, Allen CO, Robinson WR, Duberstein PR. Social support in cancer: How do patients want us to help? J Psychosoc Oncol 2019;37(6):699-712. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  33. Cipolletta S, Simonato C, Faccio E. The effectiveness of psychoeducational support groups for women with breast cancer and their caregivers: A mixed methods study. Front Psychol 2019;10:288 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  34. Okati-Aliabad H, Ansari-Moghadam A, Mohammadi M, Kargar S, Shahraki-Sanavi F. The prevalence of anxiety and depression and its association with coping strategies, supportive care needs, and social support among women with breast cancer. Support Care Cancer 2022 Jan;30(1):703-710. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  35. Bright EE, Stanton AL. Prospective investigation of social support, coping, and depressive symptoms: A model of adherence to endocrine therapy among women with breast cancer. J Consult Clin Psychol 2018 Mar;86(3):242-253. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  36. Cutler RL, Fernandez-Llimos F, Frommer M, Benrimoj C, Garcia-Cardenas V. Economic impact of medication non-adherence by disease groups: A systematic review. BMJ Open 2018 Jan 21;8(1):e016982 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  37. Kadambi S, Soto-Perez-de-Celis E, Garg T, Loh KP, Krok-Schoen JL, Battisti NML, et al. Social support for older adults with cancer: Young International Society of Geriatric Oncology review paper. J Geriatr Oncol 2020 Mar;11(2):217-224 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  38. Pinquart M, Duberstein PR. Associations of social networks with cancer mortality: A meta-analysis. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2010 Aug;75(2):122-137 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  39. Kroenke CH, Kwan ML, Neugut AI, Ergas IJ, Wright JD, Caan BJ, et al. Social networks, social support mechanisms, and quality of life after breast cancer diagnosis. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2013 Jun;139(2):515-527 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  40. Bertucci F, Le Corroller-Soriano A, Monneur-Miramon A, Moulin J, Fluzin S, Maraninchi D, et al. Outpatient cancer care delivery in the context of e-oncology: A French perspective on "cancer outside the hospital walls". Cancers (Basel) 2019 Feb 14;11(2):219 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  41. Sullivan AB, Miller D. Who is taking care of the caregiver? J Patient Exp 2015 May;2(1):7-12 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  42. Schulz R, Beach SR. Caregiving as a risk factor for mortality: The Caregiver Health Effects Study. JAMA 1999 Dec 15;282(23):2215-2219. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  43. Nightingale CL, Curbow BA, Wingard JR, Pereira DB, Carnaby GD. Burden, quality of life, and social support in caregivers of patients undergoing radiotherapy for head and neck cancer: A pilot study. Chronic Illn 2016 Sep;12(3):236-245 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  44. Spiegel D. Cancer and depression. Br J Psychiatry Suppl 1996 Jun(30):109-116. [Medline]
  45. Walker J, Hansen CH, Martin P, Symeonides S, Ramessur R, Murray G, et al. Prevalence, associations, and adequacy of treatment of major depression in patients with cancer: A cross-sectional analysis of routinely collected clinical data. Lancet Psychiatry 2014 Oct;1(5):343-350 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  46. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, Health and Medicine Division, Board on Behavioral, Cognitive, and Sensory Sciences, Board on Health Sciences Policy, Committee on the Health and Medical Dimensions of Social Isolation and Loneliness in Older Adults. Social Isolation and Loneliness in Older Adults: Opportunities for the Health Care System. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2020.
  47. Gudina AT, Cheruvu VK, Gilmore NJ, Kleckner AS, Arana-Chicas E, Kehoe LA, et al. Health related quality of life in adult cancer survivors: Importance of social and emotional support. Cancer Epidemiol 2021 Oct;74:101996. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  48. Aoun SM, Breen LJ, Howting D. The support needs of terminally ill people living alone at home: A narrative review. Health Psychol Behav Med 2014 Jan 01;2(1):951-969 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  49. Essue BM, Iragorri N, Fitzgerald N, de Oliveira C. The psychosocial cost burden of cancer: A systematic literature review. Psychooncology 2020 Nov;29(11):1746-1760 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  50. Turner J, Kelly B. Emotional dimensions of chronic disease. West J Med 2000 Feb;172(2):124-128 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  51. Coravos A, Khozin S, Mandl KD. Developing and adopting safe and effective digital biomarkers to improve patient outcomes. NPJ Digit Med 2019;2(1):14 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  52. Place S, Blanch-Hartigan D, Rubin C, Gorrostieta C, Mead C, Kane J, et al. Behavioral indicators on a mobile sensing platform predict clinically validated psychiatric symptoms of mood and anxiety disorders. J Med Internet Res 2017 Mar 16;19(3):e75 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  53. Jacobson NC, Weingarden H, Wilhelm S. Digital biomarkers of mood disorders and symptom change. NPJ Digit Med 2019;2:3 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  54. Akechi T, Okuyama T, Sagawa R, Uchida M, Nakaguchi T, Ito Y, et al. Social anxiety disorder as a hidden psychiatric comorbidity among cancer patients. Palliat Support Care 2011 Mar;9(1):103-105. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  55. Goodday SM, Friend S. Unlocking stress and forecasting its consequences with digital technology. NPJ Digit Med 2019;2:75 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  56. Shulman LN, Sheldon LK, Benz EJ. The future of cancer care in the United States-Overcoming workforce capacity limitations. JAMA Oncol 2020 Mar 01;6(3):327-328. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  57. Anderson-Lewis C, Darville G, Mercado RE, Howell S, Di Maggio S. mHealth technology use and implications in historically underserved and minority populations in the United States: Systematic literature review. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2018 Jun 18;6(6):e128 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  58. Patel R, Chang T, Greysen SR, Chopra V. Social media use in chronic disease: A systematic review and novel taxonomy. Am J Med 2015 Dec;128(12):1335-1350. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  59. Badr H, Carmack CL, Diefenbach MA. Psychosocial interventions for patients and caregivers in the age of new communication technologies: Opportunities and challenges in cancer care. J Health Commun 2015;20(3):328-342 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  60. Attai DJ, Sedrak MS, Katz MS, Thompson MA, Anderson PF, Kesselheim JC, Collaboration for Outcomes on Social Media in Oncology (COSMO). Social media in cancer care: highlights, challenges & opportunities. Future Oncol 2016 Jul;12(13):1549-1552. [CrossRef] [Medline]

HCP: health care provider
QoL: quality of life

Edited by A Mavragani; submitted 07.01.22; peer-reviewed by E Arana-Chicas, A Castro; comments to author 17.05.22; revised version received 26.05.22; accepted 31.05.22; published 24.06.22


©Dimos Katsaros, James Hawthorne, Jay Patel, Kaitlin Pothier, Timothy Aungst, Chris Franzese. Originally published in JMIR Cancer (, 24.06.2022.

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in JMIR Cancer, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.