Symptoms and survivorship needs differences between "good sleepers" and "bad sleepers" in survivors of breast and gynecologic cancers.

INTRODUCTION: Although 80% of cancer survivors report symptoms of insomnia, only 28-43% meet DSM-5 criteria for this diagnosis. We sought to characterize the association between patient-reported insomnia symptoms, patient outcomes, and supportive care variables, as well as explore clinically meaningful insomnia thresholds in a sample of women diagnosed with breast and gynecologic cancers. METHODS: From July 2018-March 2019, all breast and gynecologic cancer survivors seen at the Stanford Women's Cancer Center were approached and invited to participate in the study (15% declined). Of those who consented, 273 survivors completed an online survey related to their sleep (ISI), quality of life (FACT-G), distress (PHQ-4), supportive care needs (SCNS-SF34), and symptom severity (MDASI). Survivors who scored <8 on ISI were categorized as "good sleepers," survivors with ISI ≥8 were categorized as "bad sleepers." RESULTS: 126 (46.2%) of survivors were "good sleepers," 147 (53.8%) were "bad sleepers." Good sleepers were older than bad sleepers (p < .05) but did not differ in any other demographic or any medical variables. Using hierarchical linear regression models, we found that good sleep (ISI <8) was associated with higher quality of life, lower psychological distress, increased social support, lower symptom severity, and lower supportive care needs, after accounting for demographic, medical, and treatment variables. The findings were largely replicated with an ISI cut off of 15. CONCLUSIONS: Among women treated for breast and gynecologic cancers, survivors who were good sleepers had better psychosocial outcomes, fewer supportive care needs, and lower symptom severity compared to those who reported insomnia symptoms. Results also indicate that degree of sleep impairment, whether mild or severe, has similarly poor associations with most aspects of patient functioning and symptomatic burden. Further research is needed to determine causality of these findings.

Association of illness mindsets with health-related quality of life in cancer survivors.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to examine the association between mindsets-established, but mutable beliefs that a person holds-and health-related quality of life in survivors of breast and gynecologic cancer. METHOD: A cross-sectional survey study was conducted with breast and gynecologic cancer survivors. Measures included the Illness Mindset Questionnaire and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G). RESULTS: Two hundred seventy-three survivors (74% breast/26% gynecologic) who were on average 3.9 years post-diagnosis (SD = 4.2), Mage 55 (SD = 12) completed the survey (response rate 80%). Of the survivors, 20.1% (N = 55) endorsed ("agree" or "strongly agree") that Cancer is a Catastrophe, 52.4% (N = 143) endorsed that Cancer is Manageable, and 65.9% (N = 180) endorsed that Cancer can be an Opportunity (not mutually exclusive). Those who endorsed a maladaptive mindset (Cancer is a Catastrophe) reported lower health-related quality of life (HRQOL) compared with those who did not hold this belief (p < .001). Alternatively, those who endorsed more adaptive mindsets (Cancer is Manageable or Cancer can be an Opportunity) reported better HRQOL compared with those who disagreed (all p-values < .05). All three mindsets were independent correlates of HRQOL, explaining 6-15% unique variance in HRQOL, even after accounting for demographic and medical factors. CONCLUSIONS: Mindsets about illness are significantly associated with HRQOL in cancer survivors. Our data come from a one-time evaluation of cancer survivors at a single clinic and provide a foundation for future longitudinal studies and RCTs on the relationship between mindsets and psychosocial outcomes in cancer survivors. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Patterns of social media use and associations with psychosocial outcomes among breast and gynecologic cancer survivors.

PURPOSE: We sought to characterize the use of social media (SM) among breast and gynecologic cancer survivors, as well as associations between patterns of SM use and psychosocial outcomes. METHODS: Two hundred seventy-three breast and gynecologic cancer survivors recruited at the Stanford Women's Cancer Center completed the study. Participants completed questionnaires to measure quality of life (FACT-G), functional social support (Duke-UNC FSSQ), distress (PHQ-4), decision regret (DRS), and SM use. RESULTS: In total, 75.8% of the sample reported using SM. There was no difference in quality of life (QOL), functional social support (FSS), distress, or decision regret between SM users and non-users. SM users indicated using SM for social support (34.3%) and loneliness (24.6%) more than for information-seeking (15.9%), coping (18.8%), or self-disclosure (14%). SM use for coping was associated with lower QOL (p < .001), lower FSS (p < .001), and higher decision regret (p = .029). Use for social support was associated with lower FSS (p = .029). Use for information seeking was associated with lower QOL (p = .012). Use of SM when lonely was associated with lower QOL (p < .001), higher distress (p = .007), lower FSS (p < .001), and higher decision regret (p = .020). CONCLUSIONS: Associations between SM use and psychosocial outcomes are nuanced and dependent on motivation for use. Further research is needed to better characterize SM use and associations with psychosocial outcomes among cancer survivors. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: SM is an important potential avenue for understanding and addressing the psychosocial effects associated with cancer survivorship.