IJCMInternational Journal of Clinical Medicine2158-284XScientific Research Publishing10.4236/ijcm.2019.104021IJCM-91806ArticlesMedicine&Healthcare Factors Associated with Social Support Needs of Spouses of Patients with Cancer: Online Survey KanakoAmano1*KanakoIchikura2KazuhoHisamura3YukoMotomatsu4EisukeMatsushima5Department of Health Science, School of Allied Health Sciences, Kitasato University, Kanagawa, JapanSection of Liaison Psychiatry and Palliative Medicine, Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences, Tokyo Medical and Dental University, Tokyo, JapanNursing Department, Tokyo Medical and Dental University Hospital, Tokyo, JapanPalliative care ward, Heiwa Hospital, Kanagawa, JapanDepartment of Medical Oncology, Kanazawa Medical University, Ishikawa, Japan0304201910042702924, March 201913, April 2019 16, April 2019© Copyright 2014 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc. 2014This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY). http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Background: A means of assessing the social support needs of spouses of patients with cancer is not available in Japan, yet such individuals are at increased risk of developing psychological difficulties. Objectives: The present study aimed (1) to describe the social support needs of spouses of patients with cancer, and (2) to explore factors associated with social support needs of spouses of patients with cancer. Design: Spouses (n = 559) of patients with cancer were recruited by registered agents of an online survey company and completed a self-reporting, online questionnaire. Measurements: The questionnaires included demographic information and a tool to assess social support needs. Results: Factor analysis of social support needs of the spouses of patients with cancer indicated that (1) “social support needs regarding disease and treatment of patient” (54 items) comprised 3 factors (“medical condition and cure”, “daily life and social support”, “intimacy and employment”), and (2) “social support needs of spouse (19 items)” comprised 2 factors (“family psychological issues and social support” and “intimacy, employment and society”). The ANOVA and T tests showed that “younger age”, “under treatment”, and “cancer not cured: treatment stopped”, “PS1” and “PS 2-4”, the presence of “lung cancer”, and “recurrence/metastasis” were significant factors (all p < 0.05). Conclusions: The age of the spouse, treatment status, performance status, site of cancer, and recurrence/metastasis are important factors related to spousal needs for social support. Clinicians should assess these factors and the social support needs of spouses to provide appropriate support.

Cancer Spouse Social Support Needs Assessment Tool Online Survey1. Introduction

Spouses and partners of cancer patients have an increased risk of psychological difficulties, such as depression, anxiety, impaired self-esteem, somatic complaints, and difficulties experienced within the couple [1] [2] [3] [4] . Psychological distress experienced by spouses continues after the death of the patient. One predictor of higher risk for developing complicated grief is the loss of a spouse [5] [6] [7] , and caregivers of patients with cancer have a higher level of depressive symptoms after bereavement if they were the patient’s spouse [8] . The assessment of spousal needs is a critical step for determining appropriate support and providing high-quality care to reduce psychological distress between spouses.

Some countries have tools to assess support needs for partners and caregivers of patients with cancer, such as the Supportive Care Needs Survey-Partners and Caregivers (SCNS-P & C) in Australia [9] , a comprehensive needs assessment tool for cancer caregivers (CNAT-C) in Korea [10] , and the Cancer Survivors’ Partners Unmet Needs measure (CaSPUN) [11] . However, a tool for assessing the needs of spouses of patients with cancer is not available in Japan. Nevertheless, it is difficult to use other instruments from other countries after translation, because social support needs reflect factors in the social environment, such as perceptions and emotions related to cancer, healthcare systems, social welfare policies, and work systems. Thus, instead of translating other instruments from other countries, we decided to develop an original tool to assess social support needs for spouses in Japan to provide specific care for individual spousal needs.

One assessment of social issues of Japanese patients with cancer showed that 51.1% of them had experienced some type of social issues within the past five years [12] . Another survey demonstrated that the prevalence of unmet supportive care needs among Japanese cancer survivors was high in medical-psychological and financial domains and relatively low in physical and sexual domains [13] . However, caregiver needs were not highly correlated with patient needs, implying that caregivers have their own needs, and that a separate assessment of caregiver need is needed [10] . Therefore, we aimed to describe social support needs of spouses of patients with cancer based on the Social Problem Checklist (SPC) for Japanese patients with cancer [12] [14] and explore factors associated with social support needs of spouses of patients with cancer.

2. Methods2.1. Participants

We conducted an online survey of 559 spouses of cancer patients between November 10th and 29th 2016. The eligibility criteria were as follows: recruited by registered agents of an online survey company (Macromill Inc., Tokyo, Japan), age > 20 years, spouses of patients diagnosed with cancer within the past five years, experienced difficulties regarding disease and treatment of the patient at home, in the workplace, and the neighborhood, able to understand details of this study, able to respond to an online survey, and uninformed about eligibility criteria (to exclude bias before the online survey) (Figure 1).

2.2. Procedures

Macromill designed the online questionnaire as “the disease survey”. Check boxes and radio buttons were used for each item to answer.

Agents at Macromill were informed about the study purpose and recruited eligible participants online. Agents were paid with points in return for participating in this investigation. They could earn points if they answered all questions, and then they could exchange points for cash, gift certificates, merchandise, or points of business partners.

This study was approved by the ethics committee of the Tokyo Medical and Dental University (M2015-581). The return of completed forms was considered consent. It was explained that participants could stop answering the questionnaire when they did not want to answer.

Participants completed the online self-reporting questionnaires, which included 23 items of spousal demographic data and 146 items regarding social issues and social support needs of spouses of patients with cancer.

2.3. Measured Items2.3.1. Demographic and Medical Information

The demographic data including sex, age, province, children, annual household income, personal income, spousal occupation, site of cancer, previous treatment, treatment status, recurrence/metastasis, performance status, types of previous and present medical facilities, housemate, and housemate other than spouse.

2.3.2. Tool to Assess Social Support Needs of Spouses of Patients with Cancer (73 Items)

We developed a tool with which to assess social issues of spouses of Japanese patients with cancer (82 items) based on the SPC for Japanese patients with cancer (60 items) [12] [14] because measures of social issues and support needs developed in other countries were not appropriate for Japanese spouses of patients with cancer.

We confirmed the content validity of the original assessment tool of social issues (82 items) in an initial multidisciplinary meeting that included a psychiatrist, a medical social worker, two clinical psychologists, and a certified palliative care nurse in June 2015. Thereafter, we constructed an original scale of social issues and social support needs for the spouses of Japanese patients with cancer (164 items).

Factor analysis based on Promax rotation using the maximum likelihood method was applied to the scale of social issues and social support needs for the spouses, and 146 items were extracted.

The content validity of this original assessment tool of social issues and social support needs for the spouses of patients with cancer (146 items) was addressed at a second multidisciplinary meeting including a psychiatrist and two clinical psychologists in February 2017. The present article focuses on the 73 social support needs items of these 146 items (Figure 2).

The participants were asked if they had needed any supports regarding each item during the past month to rate the level of severity on a 6-point Likert scale, which ranged from 1 (very much) to 2 (quite a lot), 3 (a little), 4 (solved by myself), 5 (extremely satisfied), or 6 (not applicable).

After a multidisciplinary meeting including a psychiatrist, two clinical psychologists, and a medical social worker to evaluate the assessment tool of social support needs of the spouses of cancer patients, each response category was scored as follows: 4 (very much),3 (quite a lot), 2 (a little), 1 (solved by myself, extremely satisfied), or 0 (not applicable). A rating ≥ 3 was regarded as a serious need for social support.

2.4. Statistical Analysis

The demographic and medical information of the participants is summarized using descriptive statistics.

We modified the 60-item SPC for Japanese patients with cancer [12] [14] and developed an original scale of 164 items regarding social issues and social support needs of their spouses. Factor analysis based on Promax rotation using the maximum likelihood method extracted 146 items regarding social issues and the social support needs of the spouses of patients with cancer.

Differences among three age groups, three performance status groups, and three groups with previous treatment were assessed using ANOVA.

Differences among sex, cancer site, previous treatment, presence of recurrence/metastasis, type of previous and present medical facilities, and housemate other than spouse were evaluated using T-tests. All data were statistically analyzed using SPSS version 23.0 (IBM, Armonk, NY, USA).

3. Results3.1. Demographic and Medical Information of Participants

We distributed online questionnaires to 699 agents of Macromill and analyzed 559 that were returned (valid response rate, 80.0%). Table 1 shows the characteristics and medical information of the participants.

Demographic and clinical characteristics of participants (n = 559)
VariablesMeans ± SD or n (%)
Male spouse339 (60.6%)
Patient age (y)55.1 ± 12.5
20s13 (2.3%)
30s54 (9.7%)
40s116 (20.75%)
50s152 (27.2%)
≥60224 (40.1%)
Spouse age (y)54.9 ± 12.7
20s19 (3.4%)
30s50 (8.9%)
40s109 (19.5%)
50s166 (29.7%)
≥60215 (38.5%)
Primary site of cancer
(multiple answers)
Breast139 (24.9%)
Colon95 (17.0%)
Stomach62 (11.1%)
Lung59 (10.6%)
Malignant lymphoma34 (6.1%)
Prostate28 (5.0%)
Uterine20 (3.6%)
Liver18 (3.2%)
Thyroid18 (3.2%)
Kidney17 (3.0%)
Esophagus17 (3.0%)
Bladder16 (2.9%)
Head, neck, oral13 (2.3%)
Pancreas12 (2.1%)
Leukemia10 (1.8%)
Other55 (9.8%)
Previous treatment
Surgery455 (81.4%)
Radiation180 (32.2%)
Chemotherapy or hormone therapy233 (41.7%)
Folk remedy6 (1.1%)
Other30 (5.4%)
Treatment status
Under treatment233 (41.7%)
Cancer cured; treatment completed274 (49.0%)
Cancer not cured; treatment stopped29 (5.2%)
Other situations23 (4.1%)
Recurrence/metastasis
Yes136 (24.3%)
Performance status
PS0322 (57.6%)
PS1163 (29.2%)
PS231 (5.5%)
PS320 (3.6%)
PS423 (4.1%)
Types of previous and present medical facilities
(Multiple answers)
Special hospital for cancer109 (19.5%)
General hospital388 (69.4%)
Regional hospital84 (15.0%)
Local clinic10 (1.8%)
Other8 (1.4%)
Unclear4 (0.7%)
Children
Yes100 (17.9%)
Housemate
Living together552 (98.7%)
Living apart7 (1.3%)
Housemate other than spouse
Yes327 (58.5%)
Province
Hokkaido region27 (4.8%)
Touhoku region32 (5.7%)
Kantou region165 (29.5%)
Cyubu region116 (20.8%)
Kinki region100 (17.9%)
Cyugoku region41 (7.3%)
Shikoku region13 (2.3%)
Kyusyu region65 (11.6%)
Annual household income
Under 2 million17 (3.0%)
2 - under 4 million112 (20.0%)
4 - under 6 million156（27.9%)
6 - under 8 million100 (17.9%)
8 - under 10 million54 (9.7%)
10 - under 12 million21 (3.8%)
12 - under 15 million17 (3.0%)
15 - under 20 million17 (3.0%)
20 million and over9 (1.6%)
Unclear29 (5.2%)
Non-response27 (4.8%)
Personal income
Under 2 million188 (33.6%)
2 - under 4 million122 (21.8%)
4 - under 6 million87 (15.6%)
6 - under 8 million57 (10.2%)
8 - under 10 million25 (4.5%)
10 - under 12 million15 (2.7%)
12 - under 15 million7 (1.3%)
15 - under 20 million3 (0.5%)
20 million and over2 (0.4%)
Unclear23 (4.1%)
Non-response30 (5.4%)
Spousal occupation
Civil servant16 (2.9%)
Manager & Executive18 (3.2%)
Office worker (Cletical work)70 (12.5%)
Office worker (Technical work)65 (11.6%)
Office worker (Other)62 (11.1%)
Indipendent business42 (7.5%)
Liberal profession8 (1.4%)
Homemaker118 (21.1%)
Part time job60 (10.7%)
Student1 (0.2%)
Other27 (4.8%)
Unemployed72 (12.9%)

The spouses were divided into young (age 20s and 30s; n = 69, 12.3%), middle-aged (age 40s and 50s; n = 275, 49.2%), and elderly (age ≥ 60s; n = 215, 38.5%) groups. The primary sites of cancer comprised breast (n = 139, 24.9%), colon (n = 95, 17.0%), stomach (n = 62; 11.1%), lung (n = 59, 10.6%), and malignant lymphoma (n = 34, 6.1%). The types of therapy were surgery (n = 455, 81.4%) and chemotherapy or hormonal therapy (n = 233, 41.7%). The cancer had been cured and treatment had been completed in 274 (49.0%) patients, and 233 (41.7%) were still undergoing treatment.

3.2. Factors Related to Social Support Needs3.2.1. Factors Related to Social Support Needs Regarding Disease and Treatment of Patients

Factor analysis identified three factors among 54 items (Table 2).

Former items 1, 24, 36, 46 and 47 did not load < 0.1 about the differences of factor loading between factors and were excluded (Appendix A).

A psychiatrist and a clinical psychologist at a multidisciplinary meeting discussed the items that were included in different factors between the assessment tools of social issues and of social support needs and excluded former item 59 (the number before exclusion) that did not differ highly in factor loading between factors.

3.2.2. Factors Related to Social Support Needs of Spouses

Factor analysis identified two factors among 19 items (Table 3).

Former item 22 did not load < 0.1 about the differences of factor loading between factors and was excluded (Appendix B).

A psychiatrist and a clinical psychologist at a multidisciplinary meeting discussed the items that were included in different factors between the assessment tools of social issues and of social support needs and excluded former items 16 and 18 (numbers before exclusion) that did not significantly differ between factors.

3.3. Factors Associated with Social Support Needs of Spouses of Patients with Cancer

Table 4 shows that scores were higher across all scales and factors of social support needs in younger than in middle-aged and elderly spouses (p < 0.05).

Among the most prevalent of the primary cancer sites, namely lung cancer (10.6%), stomach cancer (11.1%), colon cancer (17.0%) and breast cancer (24.9%), only lung cancer significantly differed in terms of social support needs regarding “patient disease and treatment” and “spouse difficulties” (both p < 0.05).

Table 5 shows that Factor 1, “medical condition and cure” and 2, “daily life and social support” were significantly higher (p < 0.05 for both) in the measure of “patient disease and treatment” for patients with than without lung cancer. Factor 1, “family psychological issues and social support”, was also significantly

Factors of social support needs regarding disease and treatment of patients
Q: Due to patient’s disease and treatment, have you ever needed some support (e.g., advice, information and services from professionals and patients under similar circumstances) during the past month regarding the following items?
ItemsFactor 1Factor 2Factor 3
Medical condition and CureDaily life and Social SupportIntimacy and Employment
1Insufficient information regarding how to take care of patient from now on0.938−0.007−0.034
2Insufficient information about the methods, contents, and results of medical examinations for patient0.9350.009−0.044
3Insufficient information regarding patient’s current and prospective medical conditions0.933−0.021−0.002
4Insufficient explanation from medical staff regarding treatment plans and policies0.909−0.0550.072
5Insufficient information about patient’s various treatment plan0.8900.030−0.021
6Insufficient information regarding how to cope with patient’s treatment side effects and disease symptoms0.8650.0280.011
7Insufficient explanation concerning the benefits and side effects of treatments from medical staff before you decide to have them0.8580.107−0.059
8Insufficient information regarding patient’s appropriate nutrition and diet0.8560.0160.031
9Insufficient information regarding how to obtain informations about patient’s disease and treatment0.8440.087−0.024
10Choosing which hospital (or doctor) patient should visit to receive medical treatment and examination0.8230.093−0.037
11Insufficient information concerning how to cope with patient’s anxiety and depressive mood0.7730.159−0.025
12Patient’s difficulties in openly communicating with his/her doctor0.7580.1080.057
13Poor communication among health care staff to coordinate patient’s medical treatment and care(e.g., doctor in charge, other doctor, family doctor, and nurse)0.746−0.0080.165
14Insufficient information regarding patient’s palliative medicine and care that decrease distress, such as pain0.7450.0390.122
15Not being assured that patient’s current hospital (or patient’s home doctor) would provide advice to him/her when patient have sudden physical problems at home0.7450.124−0.013
16Having patient’s physical problems doesn’t treated immediately by medical staff (e.g., doctor, nurse)0.7140.1050.076
17Little sympathy and support concerning patient’s psychological issues from medical staff0.708−0.0130.189
18Consulting with another specialist besides patient’s doctor about his/her disease and treatment0.6500.233−0.080
19Having no particular clinic and doctor patient or family can consult with when patient and family need to0.6490.239−0.018
20Insufficient information regarding patients’ complementary and alternative medicine (e.g., health foods, hot spring, and qigong)0.6280.1210.117
21Having access to professional psychological counseling whenever patient and you need it0.5070.3170.015
22Getting to, entering, leaving, or changing a patient’s hospital0.4730.2920.061
23Imposing a patient’s burden on his/her family−0.0730.9020.059
24Difficulties in patient’s dealing with anxiety and worry among his/her family members0.0990.859−0.035
25Difficulties enjoying patient’s hobbies, recreations and social activities as before because of his/her disease and treatment0.0930.844−0.042
26Managing patient’s and your properties−0.0380.8340.041
27Patient’s difficulties performing his/her responsibilities in the house0.0280.8280.045
28Medical and living expenses while receiving treatment0.0340.822−0.073
29Difficulties in having sufficient support available to you (e.g., assistance and public service from people around you)0.1200.808−0.054
30Planning patient’s own and your future life0.1030.786−0.025
31Taking care of family (e.g., childrearing, nursing parents and spouse)0.0990.7650.009
32Insufficient information concerning patient’s social welfare services (e.g., nursing care insurance program, welfare system for the disabled)0.1820.744−0.064
33Patient’s having no one with a similar experience to talk to0.2300.6430.051
34Relationship and communication with patient’s friends and persons close to patient0.1440.6420.146
35Changes of patient’s figure and appearance(e.g., increasing and decreasing of weight)0.1140.6300.117
36Relationship and communication with patient’s neighbors0.1020.6180.197
37Using financial services(e.g., loans, health care and life insurance)0.0510.6080.160
38Having no one and place to go for advice regarding patient’s disease and medical treatment life0.2980.6080.016
39Relationship and communication with your spouse0.1560.5990.143
40Talking about patients disease with people in the patient’s workplace and other social places0.1070.5710.258
41Patient’s being socially isolated0.2310.5590.123
42Insufficient information concerning living supports for patient receiving cancer \treatment (e.g., medical wig, elastic stockings ,wheelchair, adjustable medical bed)0.1960.5160.176
43Difficulties in having enough understanding and cooperation from patient’s family regarding patient’s disease and treatment0.2550.5050.182
44Talking about patient’s disease with patient0.2370.5020.179
45Being excessively concerned about patient by you0.1510.4990.260
46Patient’s taking care of domestic chores (e.g. cleaning, watching, cooking, grocery shopping)0.0840.4920.333
47Patient’s looking after himself/herself (e.g., eating, bathing, excreting, dressing)0.3070.4770.104
48Being demoted and assigned a lower position in the patient’s workplace−0.010−0.0330.996
49Difficulties in getting a promotion and advancing patient’s career−0.005−0.0460.990
50Being urged to resign and lose patient’s job−0.0030.0180.906
51Difficulty with asking for time off from patient’s work for medical treatment (or school if patient is a student)0.0290.1350.781
52Issues with patient’s pregnancy and childbirth0.0630.0540.732
53Difficulty with returning and maintaining to patient’s work (or education if he/she is a student)0.0050.3210.583
54Matters concerning your sexual life0.0230.2500.562
Inter-factor correlationFactor 1
Factor 20.898**
Factor 30.733**0.814**

Factor extraction method: maximum likelihood method; Factor rotation method: Promax; Number of rotation: 4; Factor loadings > 0.25; **p < 0.01.

Factor extraction method: maximum likelihood method; Factor rotation method: Promax; Number of rotation: 3; Factor loadings > 0.25; **p < 0.01.

higher (p < 0.05) in the measure of “spouse difficulties” for patients with than without lung cancer.

All scales and factors of social support needs were significantly higher for “under treatment” than “cancer cured: treatment completed” (p < 0.05) and for “cancer not cured: treatment stopped” than “cancer cured: treatment completed” (p < 0.05).

Table 6 shows that scores for all factors regarding “patient disease and treatment” were significantly higher for patients with than without recurrence/metastasis (p < 0.05) and “spouse difficulties” (p < 0.05).

Comparisons of mean age and social support needs (ANOVA)
Mean(SD)F valueMultiple Comparison
Young (N = 69)Middle (N = 275)Elderly (N = 215)
Social Support NeedsPatient disease and treatmentTotal85.1 (70.7)51.2 (52.2)48.1 (40.4)14.8*Y > M, Y > E
Factor 1Medical condition and cure36.2 (30.2)23.1 (23.5)23.1 (19.7)9.7*Y > M, Y > E
Factor 2Daily life and social support38.5 (32.4)23.0 (24.4)21.7 (19.0)14.1*Y > M, Y > E
Factor 3Intimacy and employment10.4 (9.6)5.0 (6.4)3.3 (5.1)31.2*Y > M, Y > E, M > E
Spouse difficultiesTotal30.7 (25.1)14.8 (16.9)13.1 (13.3)30.1*Y > M, Y > E
Factor 1Family psychological issues and social support23.2 (18.5)12.1 (13.2)11.2 (10.8)23.5*Y > M, Y > E
Factor 2Intimacy, employment and society7.5 (6.9)2.7 (4.4)1.8 (3.3)44.5*Y > M, Y > E

*p < 0.05. Y, young; M, middle-aged; E, elderly. Ages: Y, M and E: 21 - 39, 40 - 59, 60 - 87 years, respectively.

Comparisons of mean cancer sites and social support needs (T test)
M(SD)t ratio
Lung Cancer
Presence (N = 59)Absence (N = 500)
Social Support NeedsPatient disease and treatmentTotal68.6 (53.8)52.4 (51.7)2.3*
Factor 1Medical condition and cure30.6 (24.6)24.0 (23.2)2.0*
Factor 2Daily life and social support31.5 (25.2)23.6 (24.0)2.4*
Factor 3Intimacy and employment6.5 (7.9)4.8 (6.7)1.8
Spouse difficultiesTotal21.5 (18.4)15.5 (17.6)2.5*
Factor 1Family psychological issues and social support17.5 (14.1)12.6 (13.5)2.6*
Factor 2Intimacy, employment and society4.0 (5.1)2.8 (4.7)1.8

*p < 0.05.

Comparisons of mean recurrence/metastasis and social support needs (T test)
M(SD)t ratio
Recurrence/metastasis
Presence (N = 136)Absence (N = 423)
Social Support NeedsPatient disease and treatmentTotal77.0 (57.1)46.8 (48.2)5.56*
Factor 1Medical condition and cure35.3 (26.0)21.3 (21.5)5.68*
Factor 2Daily life and social support34.7 (26.3)21.1 (22.6)5.39*
Factor 3Intimacy and employment7.0 (8.4)4.4 (6.1)3.41*
Spouse difficultiesTotal22.9 (20.2)13.9 (16.3)4.7*
Factor 1Family psychological issues and social support18.6 (15.2)11.4 (12.7)5.0*
Factor 2Intimacy, employment and society4.3 (5.8)2.5 (4.3)3.4*

*p < 0.05

“PS1” and “PS 2 - 4” scored higher in all scales and factors of social support needs than “PS0” (p < 0.05 for both).

4. Conclusions

The present study described the social support needs of spouses of patients with cancer. This allowed the first systematic and comprehensive needs assessment of these individuals in Japan. Factor analysis identified three underlying domains in “social support needs regarding patient disease and treatment” (“medical condition and cure”, “daily life and social support”, and “intimacy and employment”) and two underlying domains in “social support needs regarding spouse difficulties” (“family psychological issues and social support” and “intimacy, employment and society”). These domains reflect the common needs generally reported in the literature regarding cancer caregivers [10] [11] [15] . One advantage of the present study is that the tool for assessing social support needs focused on the spouses of patients with cancer and identified needs for support with “patient disease and treatment” and “spouse difficulties”.

The ANOVA findings showed that the young group scored significantly higher across all scales and factors of social support needs than the middle-aged and elderly groups. In the Adolescent and Young Adult (AYA) population, cancer is the leading cause of death due to illness with the lowest mortality rate, as well as in children, and AYA patients with cancer are growing independently, starting life within the community, and are reaching reproductive age [16] ; they have physical changes to become adults and unique psychological issues that are distinct from those of pediatric and older adult patients [16] . Intimacy is harmed more frequently among survivors of breast cancer aged < 45 years than among those aged 46 - 54 and > 55 years. Psychological problems are more prevalent among younger women who survive breast cancer [17] . AYA cancer patients experienced many specific sequelae after cancer diagnosis and treatment, such as loss of fertility [18] [19] , hair loss, and other physical changes and fatigue [20] [21] , as well as difficulties with social relationships, employment, educational attainment, and financial burden [22] [23] . Regarding mental health, AYA cancer patients had an increased prevalence of anxiety, depression, and distress than healthy peers and the general public [24] [25] . Additionally, AYA cancer survivors were more likely to have a poorer quality of life than persons of the same age in the general population and older cancer survivors [26] . In young patients, these subjective factors of severity of illness and emotional distress affected posttraumatic stress symptoms and subjective experience of her spouse more [27] [28] . In particular, younger age is a factor associated with high psychological distress and a low quality of life for spouses and partners [29] . The present findings were consistent with those of a previous study of AYA cancer caregivers and indicated that medical staff should consider the social support needs of young spouses more carefully.

Only lung cancer significantly differed among primary cancer sites in patients. According to the website of the Cancer Information Service of National Cancer Center in Japan [30] , lung cancer had the highest number of fatalities among males and females during 2017. Lung cancer is associated with increased symptomatic distress and unmet needs compared with other types of cancer, with the most common symptoms being fatigue, cough, and dyspnea [31] . Therefore, lung cancer also impacts anxiety and depression among spouses [32] [33] . This result is consistent with previous finding that the most prevalent unmet needs among caregivers of patients with advanced lung cancer were related to information, healthcare service, and daily living [34] , and that unmet needs were more prevalent among caregivers of lung cancer survivors at 6 and 24 months after diagnosis [15] . The present study did not find significant differences regarding “intimacy and employment” in disease and treatment of patient and “intimacy, employment and society” in spousal difficulties. Being a young spousal caregiver is a factor of economic burden for the spouse of a patient with lung cancer [35] . In this study, most participants were more than middle-aged, and, therefore, issues of intimacy and employment might have been less important.

It was found that the social support needs were significantly higher among spouses of patients in the “under treatment” than in the “cancer cured: treatment completed” groups and among those of patients in “cancer not cured: treatment stopped” than in “cancer cured: treatment completed” groups. Patients undergoing surgery, chemotherapy, radiation therapy, or chemoradiotherapy experience significant cancer treatment-related fatigue that begins during treatment and decreases following treatment [36] , and patients’ fatigue might also affect spousal distress and social support needs. For example, the spouses of patients with incurable cancer in the palliative care phase have a higher frequency of depression symptoms [37] , and spouses faced with the “cancer not cured: treatment stopped” situation also have many social support needs. Our results are consistent with previous findings and indicate that the spouses of patients with cancer have obvious social support needs, especially when patients undergo treatment or are incurable and treatment has been stopped. Appropriate social support should be provided in such situations.

We also found higher social support needs among spouses of patients with than without recurrence or metastasis, with PS1 than PS0, and with PS 2 to 4 than PS0. Patients who have cancer with poorer performance status might have difficulty coping with the disease and consequently might experience more psychological distress [38] . Therefore, their spouses might also have high levels of need when their patients have low performance status. Indeed, recent studies have suggested that spouses and partners experience physical and psychological distress over the burden of patient care, anxiety, depression, and posttraumatic stress symptoms, and they have to deal with their own lifestyles (such as childcare, missing work, financial burden) when patients are in the terminal phase or developing metastasis and recurrence [37] [39] [40] [41] [42] . Furthermore, caregiver depression, burden, and missing work increase more during the terminal period than during the palliative period [40] . This finding suggests that medical staff should assess the social support needs of spouses in these situations to provide adequate support as the functional status of the patient declines.

In conclusion, the age of the spouse, cancer site in the patient, recurrence/metastasis, and performance status are important factors related to the social support needs of spouses. Medical staff should assess the situations of spouses on an individual basis and plan strategies to help reduce unmet needs. Communicating openly with spouses and consulting with health-care professionals could be helpful to fulfill specific social support needs regarding disease and treatment of patients and specific ones of spouses. Providing concrete medical information would be effective to solve needs of disease and treatment of patients. Introducing psychosocial services and self-help groups would be also useful to solve being socially isolated and having no one with a similar experience to talk to. Delivering psychoeducation on relaxation techniques and communication skills with patient, medical staff, people in workplace may improve spouse coping skills to solve psychosocial needs by themselves [43] [44] . Couple-based interventions may also beneficial for spouses to improve relational satisfaction and communication with patients [45] [46] .

The most important study limitation is the representativeness of the sample. The participants might have been affected by sampling bias because they were recruited by agents online and, therefore, targeted only persons who were familiar with the internet and specific agents. An online survey that does not reflect whether everything recorded about the patients was correct was used. Distribution of cancer sites was slightly different from that of the general cancer population in Japan. Social support needs might have been underestimated because most participants had good performance status. The second limitation is that our original tool has not been standardized, although its content validity was confirmed in a multidisciplinary meeting.

Despite the limitations, this is the first study to examine the social support needs and their associated factors among spouses of patients with cancer in Japan.

In future research, clinical data about spouses of cancer patients in the hospital setting should be collected. We therefore plan to test the applicability of the assessment tool in hospitals and to explore the social support needs for spouses of patients with cancer in Japan.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to sincerely thank the participants, Macromill, and the laboratory staff at Liaison Psychiatry and Palliative Medicine at Tokyo Medical and Dental University.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Funding

This study was financially supported by a donation from a professor emeritus of the Tokyo Institute of Technology, Taizou Iijima and his wife (No. 1713).

Cite this paper

Amano, K., Ichikura, K., Hisamura, K., Motomatsu, Y. and Matsushima, E. (2019) Factors Associated with Social Support Needs of Spouses of Patients with Cancer: Online Survey. International Journal of Clinical Medicine, 10, 270-292. https://doi.org/10.4236/ijcm.2019.104021

ReferencesBigatti, S.M., Wagner, C.D., Lydon-Lam, J.R., Steiner, J.L. and Miller, K.D. (2011) Depression in Husbands of Breast Cancer Patients: Relationships to Coping and Social Support. Support Care Cancer, 19, 455-466. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-010-0835-8Braun, M., Mikulincer, M., Rydall, A., Walsh, A. and Rodin, G. (2007) Hidden Morbidity in Cancer: Spouse Caregivers. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 25, 4829-4834. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2006.10.0909Doorenbos, A.Z., Given, B., Given, C.W., Wyatt, G., Gift, A., Rahbar, M. and Jeon, S. (2007) The Influence of End-of-Life Cancer Care on Caregiver. Research in Nursing & Health, 30, 270-281. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.20217Haun, M.W., Sklenarova, H., Villalbos, M., Thomas, M., Brechtel, A., L&#246;we, B., Herzog, W. and Hartmann, M. (2014) Depression, Anxiety and Disease-Related Distress in Couples Affected by Advanced Lung Cancer. Lung Cancer, 86, 274-280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lungcan.2014.09.009Chiu, Y.W., Huang, C.T., Yin, S.M., Huang, Y.C., Chien, C.H. and Chuang, H.Y. (2010) Determinants of Complicated Grief in Caregivers Who Cared for Terminal Cancer Patients. Supportive Care Cancer, 18, 1321-1327. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-009-0756-6Fujisawa, D., Miyashita, M., Nakajima, S., Ito, M., Kato, M. and Kim, Y. (2010) Prevalence and Determinants of Complicated Grief in General Population. Journal of Affective Disorders, 127, 352-358. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2010.06.008Kersting, A., Br&#228;her, E., Glaesmer, H. and Wagner, B. (2011) Prevalence of Complicated Grief in a Representative Population-Based Sample. Journal of Affective Disorders, 13, 339-343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2010.11.032Ling, S.F., Chen, M.L., Li, C.Y., Chang, W.C., Shen, W.C. and Tang, S.T. (2013) Trajectory and Influencing Factors of Depressive Symptoms in Family Caregivers before and after the Death of Terminally Ill Patients with Cancer. Oncology Nurse Forum, 40, E32-E40.https://doi.org/10.1188/13.ONF.E32-E40Girgis, A., Lambert, S. and Lecathelinais, C. (2011) The Supportive Care Needs Survey for Partners and Caregivers of Cancer Survivors: Development and Psychometric Evaluation. Psycho-Oncology, 20, 387-393.https://doi.org/10.1002/pon.1740Shin, D.W., Park, J.-H., Shim, E.-J., Park, J.-H., Choi, J.-Y., Kim, S.G. and Park, E.-C. (2011) The Development of a Comprehensive Needs Assessment Tool for Cancer-Caregivers in Patient-Caregiver Dyads. Psycho-Oncology, 20, 1342-1352. https://doi.org/10.1002/pon.1857Hodgkinson, K., Butow, P., Hobbs, K.M., Hunt, G.E., Lo, S.K. and Wain, G. (2007) Assessing Unmet Supportive Care Needs in Partners of Cancer Survivors: The Development and Evaluation of the Cancer Supervisors’ Partners Unmet Needs Measure (CaSPUN). Psycho-Oncology, 16, 805-813. https://doi.org/10.1002/pon.1138Hisamura K. ,et al. (2010)Problems in Social Lives Patients with Cancer Experience and the Importance of Social Support Gendai No Esupuri 517, 41-53.Umezawa, S., Fujisawa, D., Fujimori, M., Ogawa, A., Matsushima, E. and Miyashita, M. (2015) Prevalence, Associated Factors and Source of Support Concerning Supportive Care Needs among Japanese Cancer Survivors. Psycho-Oncology, 24, 635-642. https://doi.org/10.1002/pon.3702Hisamura, K., Matsushima, E., Tsukayama, S., Murakami, S. and Motto, Y. (2018) An Exploratory Study of Social Problems Experienced by Ambulatory Patients with Cancer in Japan: Frequency and Association with Perceived Need for Help. Psycho-Oncology, 27, 1704-1710.https://doi.org/10.1002/pon.4703Girgis, A., Lambert, S.D., McElduff, P., Bonevski, B., Lecathelinais, C., Boyes, A. and Stacey, F. (2013) Some Things Change, Some Things Stay the Same: A Longitudinal Analysis of Cancer Caregivers’ Unmet Supportive Care Needs. Psycho-Oncology, 22, 1557-1564. https://doi.org/10.1002/pon.3166Horibe K. ,et al. (2017)Characteristics of Adolescent and Young Adult Cancer Japanese Journal of Cancer and Chemotherapy 44, 7-11.Stava, C.J., Lopez, A. and Vassilopoulou-Sellin, R. (2006) Health Profiles of Younger and Older Breast Cancer Survivors. Cancer, 107, 1752-1759. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.22200Geue, K., Richter, D., Schmidt, R., Sender, A., Siedentopf, F., Br&#228;hler, E. and St&#246;bel-Richter, Y. (2014) The Desire for Children and Fertility Issues among Young German Cancer Survivors. Journal of Adolescent Health, 54, 527-535. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2013.10.005Zerback, B.J., Casillas, J., Nohr, L., Adams, H. and Zeltzer, L.K. (2004) Fertility Issues for Young Adult Survivors of Childhood Cancer. Psycho-Oncology, 13, 689-699. https://doi.org/10.1002/pon.784Geue, K., Sender, A., Schmidt, R., Richter, D., Hinz, A., Schulte, T., Br&#228;hler, E. and St&#246;bel-Richter, Y. (2014) Gender-Specific Quality of Life after Cancer in Young Adulthood: A Comparison with the General Population. Quality of Life Research, 23, 1377-1386. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-013-0559-6Nowe, E., St&#246;bel-Richter, Y., Sender, A., Leuteritz, K., Friedrich, M. and Geue, K. (2017) Cancer-Related Fatigue in Adolescents and Young Adults: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Critical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology, 118, 63-69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.critrevonc.2017.08.004Bellizzi, K.M., Smith, A., Schmidt, S., Keegan, T.H.M., Zebrack, B., Lynch, C.F., Deapen, D.D., Shnorhavorian, M., Tompkins, B.J., Simon, M. and the Adolescent and Young Adult Health Outcomes and Patient Experience (AYA HOPE) Study Collaborative Group (2012) Positive and Negative Psychosocial Impact of Being Diagnosed with Cancer as an Adolescent or Young Adult. Cancer, 118, 5155-5162. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.27512Warner, E.L., Kent, E.E., Trevino, K.M., Parsons, H.M., Zebrack, B.J. and Kirchhoff, A.C. (2016) Social Well-Being among Adolescents and Young Adults with Cancer: A Systematic Review. Cancer, 122, 1029-1037. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.29866Dyson, G.J., Thompson, K., Palmer, S., Thomas, D.M. and Schofield, P. (2012) The Relationship between Unmet Needs and Distress amongst Young People with Cancer. Supportive Care Cancer, 20, 75-85. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-010-1059-7Larsson, G., Mattsson, E. and Essen, L.V. (2010) Aspects of Quality of Life, Anxiety, and Depression among Persons Diagnosed with Cancer during Adolescence: A Long-Term Follow-Up Study. European Journal of Cancer, 46, 1062-1068. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2010.01.021Quinn, G.P., Goncalves, V., Sehovic, I., Bowman, M.L. and Reed, D.R. (2015) Quality of Life in Adolescent and Young Adult Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Patient Related Outcome Measures, 6, 19-51. https://doi.org/10.2147/PROM.S51658Duprez, C., Vanlemments, L., Untas, A., Antoine, P., Lesur, A., Loustalot, C., Guillement, C., Leclerrcq, M., Segura, C., Carlier, D., Lefeuvre-Plesse, C., Simon, H., Frenel, J.S. and Christophe, V. (2017) Emotional Distress and Subjective Impact of the Disease in Young Women with Breast Cancer and Their Spouses. Future Oncology, 13, 2667-2680. https://doi.org/10.2217/fon-2017-0264Juth, V., Silver, R.C. and Sender, L. (2015) The Shared Experience of Adolescent and Young Adult Cancer Patients and Their Caregivers. Psycho-Oncology, 24, 1746-1753. https://doi.org/10.1002/pon.3785Hagedoorn, M., Buunk, B.P., Kuijer, R.G., Wobbes, T. and Sanderman, R. (2000) Couples Dealing with Cancer: Role and Gender Differences Regarding Psychological Distress and Quality of Life. Psycho-Oncology, 9, 232-242. https://doi.org/10.1002/1099-1611(200005/06)9:3<232::AID-PON458>3.0.CO;2-JThe Cancer Information Service of National Cancer Center in Japan. https://ganjoho.jp/reg_stat/statistics/stat/short_pred.htmlSung, M.R., Patel, M.V., Djalalov, S., Le, L.W., Shepherd, F.A., Burkes, R.L., Feld, R., Lin, S., Tudor, R. and Leighl, N.B. (2017) Evolution of Symptom Burden of Advanced Lung Cancer over a Decade. Clinical Lung Cancer, 18, 274-280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cllc.2016.12.010Lee, Y.-H., Liao, Y.-C., Liao, W.-Y., Shun, S.-C., Liu, Y.-C., Chan, J.-C., Yu, C.-J., Yang, P.-C. and Lai, Y.-H. (2013) Anxiety, Depression and Related Factors in Family Caregivers of Newly Diagnosed Lung Patients with Cancer before First Treatment. Psycho-Oncology, 22, 2617-2623. https://doi.org/10.1002/pon.3328Siminoff, L.A., Wilsom-Genderson, M. and Baker Jr., S. (2010) Depressive Symptoms in Lung Patients with Cancer and Their Family Caregivers and the Influence of Family Environment. Psycho-Oncology, 19, 1285-1293. https://doi.org/10.1002/pon.1696Chen, S.C., Chiou, S.C., Yu, C.J., Lee, Y.H., Liao, W.Y., Hsieh, P.Y., Jhang, S.Y. and Lai, Y.H. (2016) The Unmet Supportive Care Needs—What Advanced Lung Cancer Patients’ Caregivers Need and Related Factors. Supportive Care Cancer, 24, 2999-3009. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-016-3096-3Kavanaugh, M., Kramer, B.J., Walsh, M.C. and Trentham-Dietz, A. (2015) Factors Contributing to Economic Burden in Lung Cancer Spousal Caregivers. Palliative & Supportive Care, 13, 691-700. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1478951514000443Holiday, E.B., Dieckmann, N.F., McDonald, T.L., Hung, A.Y., Thomas Jr., C.R. and Wood, L.J. (2016) Relationship between Fatigue, Sleep Quality and Inflammatory Cytokines during External Beam Radiation Therapy for Prostate Cancer: A Prospective Study. Radiation and Oncology, 118, 105-111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2015.12.015Fasse, L., Flahault, C., Bredart, A., Dolbeault, S. and Sultan, S. (2015) Describing and Understanding Depression in Spouses of Patients with Cancer in Palliative Phase. Psycho-Oncology, 24, 1131-1137. https://doi.org/10.1002/pon.3777Akechi, T., Okamura, H., Yamawaki, S. and Uchitomi, Y. (1998) Predictors of Patient’s Mental Adjustment to Cancer: Patient Characteristics and Social Support. British Journal of Cancer, 77, 2381-2385. https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.1998.396Butler, L.D., Field, N.P., Busch, A.L., Seplaki, J.E., Hastings, T.A. and Spiegel, D. (2005) Anticipating Loss and Other Temporal Stressors Predict Traumatic Stress Symptoms among Partners of Metastatic/Recurrent Breast Cancer Patients. Psycho-Oncology, 14,492-502. https://doi.org/10.1002/pon.865Grunfeld, E., Coyle, D., Whelan, T., Clinch, J., Reyno, L., Earle, C.C., Willan, A., Voila, R., Coristine, M., Janz, T. and Glossop, R. (2004) Family Caregiver Burden: Results of a Longitudinal Study of Breast Patients with Cancer and Their Principal Caregivers. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 170, 1795-1801. https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.1031205Lewis, F.M. and Deal, L.W. (1995) Balancing Our Lives: A Study of the Married Couple’s Experience with Breast Cancer Recurrence. Oncology Nursing Forum, 22, 943-953.Siegel, K., Karus, D.G., Raveis, V.H., Christ, G.H. and Mesagno, F.P. (1996) Depressive Distress among the Spouses of Terminally Ill Cancer Patients. Cancer Practice, 4, 25-30.Hedden, L., Wassersug, R., Mahovlich, S., Pollock, P., Sundar, M., Bell, R.H., Goldenberg, L. and Higano, C.S. (2017) Evaluating an Educational Intervention to Alleviate Distress amongst Men with Newly Diagnosed Prostate Cancer and Their Partners. BJU International, 120, E21-E29.Hudson, P.L., Trauer, T., Lobb, E., Zordan, R., Williams, A., Quinn, K., Summers, M. and Thomas, K. (2012) Supporting Family Caregivers of Hospitalised Palliative Care Patients: A Psychoeducational Group Intervention. BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care, 2, 115-120. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjspcare-2011-000131Wang, F., Luo, D., Fu, L., Zhang, H., Wu, S., Zhang, M., Zhou, H., Sun, T. and Chen, X. (2017) The Efficacy of Couple-Based Interventions on Health-Related Quality of Life in Cancer Patients and Their Spouses: A Meta-Analysis of 12 Randomized Controlled Trials. Cancer Nursing, 40, 39-47. https://doi.org/10.1097/NCC.0000000000000356Li, Q. and Loke, A.Y. (2014) A Systematic Review of Spousal Couple-Based Intervention Studies for Couples Coping with Cancer: Direction for the Development of Interventions. Psycho-Oncology, 23, 731-739. https://doi.org/10.1002/pon.3535