Background: This study was aimed at comparing the quality of life, body image, and perceived social support in women with breast cancer surgery. Patients and Methods: Patients receiving breast-conserving surgery (BCS) (n = 72), mastectomy alone (n = 44), and mastectomy with breast reconstruction (n = 41) were evaluated using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30), the EORTC Breast Cancer Module (QLQ-BR23), the Body Image Scale (BIS) and the Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS). Results: The results indicated that the BCS group had a better body image compared with the other 2 groups and better role functioning compared with the mastectomy-alone group. In the reconstruction group, body image correlated with perceived social support, especially from family and significant others. Conclusion: These results suggest that a positive perception of a supportive social network can help women with breast reconstruction to better cope with the psychological effects of surgery on their body image.

This is a cross-sectional study. All participants (n = 199) underwent the following self-report questionnaires: the SWB-Index, the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form, and the Caregiver Burden Inventory (CBI). SWB scores were dichotomized at a cutoff corresponding to the 75th percentile. Statistical analyses were made using the Student t or by chi-square test to compare high and low SWB groups.ResultThe high SWB group reported significantly better Medical Outcomes Study Short Form scores in bodily pain (p = 0.035), vitality (p < 0.001), social activities (p = 0.001), mental health (p < 0.001), and in standardized mental component subscales (p < 0.001) than the low SWB group. No significant differences were detected between the two SWB groups in physical activity, physical role, general health, emotional status, and standardized physical component scale. The high SWB group also had better CBI scores in the physical (p = 0.049) and developmental burden (p = 0.053) subscales. There were no significant differences in the other CBI scores (overall and sections).Significance of resultsThis study points out that high SWB caregivers have a more positive QoL and burden. Knowledge of these associations calls for more attention on the part of healthcare professionals toward spiritual resources among family cancer caregivers from the moment of diagnosis and across the entire cancer trajectory.

The aim of this study was to evaluate caregiver burden and quality of life (QoL) in active treatment settings and hospice care for 76 family caregivers of advanced cancer patients, using the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form and the Caregiver Burden Inventory. Compared to the active group, the hospice group reported significantly lower QoL scores in mental component summary score and higher scores in general health subscale and in physical component summary score. Future research needs to further investigate the complexities of caregivers' needs, especially in the emotional and mental domains, and offer effective, clinically proven interventions.

This study points out that caregivers who experience low SWB have a poorer QoL and more problematic intrapsychic aspects of personality, such as low self-acceptance of their own emotions, are self-refusing and unable to be in contact with their own feelings. This suggests that spirituality could be a source of strength and a potential avenue for therapeutic intervention.

Context: The aging of the world’s population increasingly calls on older people to care for their cancer relatives. This scenario confronts clinicians involved with end-of-life care with an imposing challenge: elderly family caregivers could have a different perception of the burdens associated with assistance compared to their younger counterparts. Palliativists need to know what limits and resources of these new age categories of caregivers could be for a global management of dying patients with cancer and their family. Objectives: To evaluate the caregiver burden in family caregivers supporting dying patients with cancer in order to compare the differences between 2 different caregivers age groups (younger vs elderly population). Methods: This is a cross-sectional study. A total of 174 family caregivers of hospice patients were interviewed through the Caregiver Burden Inventory (CBI). The sample group was divided into 2 subgroups aged <65 (younger group) and ≥65 years old (elderly group). Results: Compared with younger caregivers, the elderly group reported significantly higher scores in the CBI–developmental subscale ( P = .009) confirmed by the generalized linear model (multivariate) evaluation that included possible predictors in the model. No further differences were found between the 2 age groups in the other CBI scores (time-dependent, physical, social, emotional, and overall score). Conclusion: Elderly caregivers are at high risk for experiencing developmental burden. This finding could prompt mental health professionals to pay greater attention to the value that assistance to the family member can have on their personal story and on that of the family or couple.