The Influence of Social Support on Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation Survival: A Systematic Review of Literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hematopoietic Stem cell Transplantation (HSCT) can negatively impact the psychosocial well-being of the patient. Social support is a complex term that has been variably used to encompass perceived and objective support, including caregiver presence. Social support has been associated with superior psychosocial outcomes; however the influence of social support on HSCT survival remains unclear. We sought to summarize the literature on the influence of social support on HSCT survival. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, COCHRANE, CINAHL, AND PSYCINFO WERE SEARCHED USING THE FOLLOWING SEARCH CATEGORIES/CONCEPTS: 1) HSCT, 2) Social support, 3) Caregiver, 4) Survival, and 5) Treatment outcomes. RESULTS: We identified 6 relevant studies: 4 publications, 1 dissertation, and 1 abstract. Three studies were retrospective and 3, prospective. Sample size ranged between 92-272 with a mean/median patient age between 30-55 yrs. The duration of follow-up ranged between 13.3-48 months. Social support was measured inconsistently: 2 by retrospective investigator assessment, 2 as patients' perceived support, 1 as caregiver presence, and 1 included caregiver presence and retrospective investigator assessment. The 4 published studies and 1 abstract demonstrate an association between better social support and survival. However, the unpublished dissertation, with the largest sample size found no association. CONCLUSIONS: There is a paucity of evidence examining social support with HSCT survival. Available studies are older, with the most recent publication in 2005. A heterogeneous group of HSCT patients were studied with variable follow-up times. Further, covariates were variably considered in HSCT survival analyses and we suggest that there may be publication bias, given the negative unpublished study with the largest sample size. Prospective studies using validated scales are necessary to better assess the influence of social support on HSCT mortality. Given the potential for improved HSCT survival with better social support, HSCT centres should routinely provide HSCT recipients and their caregivers with enhanced psychosocial services.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".