Table 2.

Social support studied and key findings of the studies included in the review.

Author/Year of Publication	Type of Social Support Studied	Key Results
Ayik et al. [23]	social support	The relationship between the MSPSS and Rolls Royce Quality of Life Scale of the patients was investigated; a positively important connection was determined between perceived total social support and general quality of life subscales of general well-being, medical interaction, sexual function, physical symptoms and activity, social relations, business performance scores and the total mean scores. There was a positive and important relationship between the MSPSS subscales and the total mean scores of patients and caregivers.
Boeding et al. [24]	partner support, social support, perceived support	Results show that on days in which women reported higher levels of negative or positive mood, as well as on days they reported more pain and fatigue, they reported receiving more support. Women who, on average, reported higher levels of positive mood tended to report receiving more support than those who, on average, reported lower positive mood. However, average levels of negative mood were not associated with support. Higher average levels of fatigue but not pain was associated with higher support. Finally, women whose husbands reported higher levels of marital satisfaction reported receiving more partner support, but husbands’ marital satisfaction did not moderate the effect of women’s mood on support.
Chen et al. [25]	social support, perceived social support, practical social support, friends support, family support	The results indicated that the patients’ and their spouses’ level of family resilience was positively associated with their own individual resilience directly and indirectly by increasing their own perceived social support. The family resilience of the spouses was associated with an increase in the patients’ individual resilience only indirectly by increasing the patients’ perceived social support. The spouse-actor effects between family resilience and individual resilience differed significantly by sex.
Dębska et al. [26]	support: instrumental, emotional, informational support, perceived (emotional instrumental), received (emotional; instrumental; informational; satisfaction with support)	Cancer patients had more perceived and received social support than their caregivers. Patients identified more sources of available support than their caregivers. When the level of support was stratified according to the caregiver’s relationship with the patient, caregivers-partners, and caregivers-children presented higher levels of perceived support than caregivers-siblings and caregivers-parents. Caregivers received less support than patients from medical personnel.
Goldzweig et al. [27]	social support	Patients presented high distress levels. Among patients and spouses, perceived social support was positively correlated to their own level of hope and negatively correlated to the other’s level of hope.
Hasson-Ohayon et al. [28]	sample, emotional, cognitive and instrumental support	Older patients and spouses reported lower levels of depression than younger ones. SEM showed that social support related directly to depression among younger women and older spouses, while hope was directly related to depression among older women and younger spouses, and acted as a mediator between social support and depression.
Jeong et al. [29]	perceived support	Patients’ income and social support were related to depression and anxiety, but the interaction of income and social support was only observed for anxiety. For caregivers, no interaction effects were found. Social support decreased the negative effects of low-income status on the patients. No predictors related to patients’ health or living status explained caregivers’ depression and anxiety in Model I. When social support was entered in Model II, patients’ age had a marginally significant effect on patients’ depression; patients’ income had significant predictability of patients’ anxiety. Additionally, patients’ social support predicted patients’ anxiety, whereas caregivers’ social support explained both the depression and anxiety of caregivers. There was no dyadic effect: patients’ social support neither predicted caregivers’ outcomes, nor did caregivers’ social support predict patients’ outcomes. Patients’ depression was explained by patients’ income, and patients’ anxiety was explained by income and social support, including their interaction. For caregivers’ outcomes, no predictors related to patients’ status nor did caregivers’ social support had significant predicting power.
Law et al. [30]	social support	Three major themes emerged from the data: (a) treating the team as a source of support, highlighting the importance of connection with the treating team; (b) changes in existing social supports, encompassing issues regarding distance in interpersonal relationships as a consequence of cancer; and (c) differing dimensions of support, exploring the significance of shared experience, practical, financial, and emotional support.
Pasek et al. [31]	perceived support: available, emotional, instrumental, the need for support, seeking support currently received, protective buffering support, emotional support, instrumental support, information support, satisfaction with support	On the support scales, statistically significant differences between the examined patients and their caregivers occurred for the support currently received (p ≤ 0.01), emotional support (p ≤ 0.05), and the general level of received protective buffering support (p ≤ 0.001). The study showed statistically significant differences in the scales of currently received support and emotional support. In both cases, the values of support indicated by patients were higher than those indicated by caregivers. On the scale of protective buffering support, the sense of support was significantly higher in caregivers than in patients. No statistically significant differences were observed in the groups of patients and their caregivers on the scales of perceived emotional support, perceived information support, the need for support, sense of support, instrumental support and information support. There was a statistically significant correlation between information support in the group of caregivers and the need for support (0.23) and the sense of support (0.16) in the group of patients. A positive correlation was obtained, indicating that the increase in information support for carers increased the need for support and the sense of support in patients.
Pasek et al. [10]	perceived support	Perceived social support scores were high in both groups; still, the values of this parameter in cancer patients turned to be higher than in their caregivers. In both patients (t = −3.82; p < 0.001; d = 0.40) and their caregivers (t = −2.25; p = 0.027; d = 0.21), the level of perceived instrumental support was higher than the level of perceived emotional support. This points to the important role of the interaction between the patient and their close relatives as a determinant of illness acceptance.
Sterba et al. [32]	received and provided support	The most frequently approved type of support identified by both patients and caregivers was emotional support, with frequent emphasis on specific types of emotional support in the form of spiritual help and help for patients with aesthetic problems and addictions. Caregivers were also more likely than patients to commonly emphasise the provision of critical instrumental support, including help with finances, transportation to appointments, cooking and other household chores.
Surucu et al. [33]	perceived social support, emotional and material support, information support	No significant correlation was found between the perceived social support of cancer patients from their relatives and the social support the relatives think they provided for the patients. Patients’ perceived social support from their relatives is higher than what the relatives think they provide for the patients. The patients and relatives had very high levels of hope; no significant correlation was found.
Uslu-Sahan [34]	social support, emotional support, perceived social support	Patients had higher hopelessness and death anxiety compared with caregivers. Patients’ perceived social support explained 35% of the total variance in hopelessness and 28% of the variance in death anxiety; caregivers’ perceived social support explained 40% of the total variance in hopelessness and 12% of the variance in death anxiety.