You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 8, Issue 11
  • Influences of facial disfigurement and social support for psychosocial adjustment among patients with oral cancer in Taiwan: a cross-sectional study

Article Text

Article menu

Download PDFPDF

XML
Oncology
Research
Influences of facial disfigurement and social support for psychosocial adjustment among patients with oral cancer in Taiwan: a cross-sectional study
  1. Tsae-Jyy Wang1,
  2. Ming-Hsiu Lu2,
  3. Pei-Ling Kuo3,
  4. Yi-Wei Chen4,
  5. Shu-Chiung Lee5,
  6. Shu-Yuan Liang1
  1. 1School of Nursing, National Taipei University of Nursing and Health Sciences, Taipei, Taiwan
  2. 2Department of Nursing, Tri-Service General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan
  3. 3School of Nursing, University of Kang Ning, Taipei, Taiwan
  4. 4Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Tzu Chi Hospital, Hualien, Taiwan
  5. 5Department of Nursing, Veteran General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan
  1. Correspondence to Ming-Hsiu Lu; W41{at}ndmctsgh.edu.tw

Abstract

Objective To explore the influences of facial disfigurement and social support for psychosocial adjustment in patients with oral cancer.

Design A cross-sectional design was used for the study.

Participants and setting A convenience sample of 77 patients with oral cancer was recruited from the otolaryngology and oral and maxillofacial surgery outpatient clinics of three general hospitals in Taiwan.

Measures Data were collected using the study questionnaires, including the Facial Disfigurement Scale, the Social Support Scale and the Psychosocial Adjustment to Illness Scale.

Results The mean score on the Psychosocial Adjustment to Illness Scale was 413.01 (SD=32.32); 71.4% of the participants were maladjusted. Results of multiple regression analysis showed statistically significant main effects of tumour site (beta=0.37), facial disfigurement (beta=0.35) and social support (beta=−1.01), and the interaction effect of facial disfigurement and social support (beta=0.79) (all p<0.05) on psychosocial adjustment after controlling for other sociodemographic and clinical variables. All variables together explained 62% of the variance in psychosocial adjustment (F(16, 55)=14.98, p<0.001).

Conclusions The level of psychosocial adjustment in patients with oral cancer was suboptimal. Poorer psychosocial adjustment was reported by patients with more severe facial disfigurement and less social support. Patients with cancers in other areas of the oral cavity also reported poorer psychosocial adjustment than patients with cancers in the buccal mucosa. Medical professionals may use these variables to identify higher risk groups for early intensive intervention.

  • facial disfigurement
  • social support
  • mouth neoplasms
  • adjustment disorders

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-023670

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Strengths and limitations of this study

    • This is the first known study to explore the inter-relationship among individual characteristics, disfigurement and social support in shaping psychosocial adjustment of patients with oral cancer in Taiwan.

    • The study findings present cross-cultural evidence for the importance of financial status, facial disfigurement and social support on the psychosocial adjustment in patients with oral cancer.

    • The cross-sectional nature of the study precluded an assessment of the evolution of psychosocial adjustment with disease progression and did not permit us to determine causal relationships among the study variables. The small sample size also limits the generalisability of the study findings.

    Introduction  

    Oral cancer and its treatments can result in destructive alterations in facial appearance and oral function impairments. Patients with oral cancer often face substantial challenges including problems with speaking, eating, changes in work and restriction of interpersonal relationships, as well as survival uncertainty.1 2 Adverse psychosocial morbidities such as depression,3 anxiety,4 body image disturbances,5 social isolation6 and reduced well-being have been well documented and may persist after treatment or even deteriorate over time in some patients.7 8 Compared with patients with other types of cancer, those with oral cancer have higher levels of distress and unresolved physical, psychological and social needs.9 The identification of risk factors for psychosocial maladjustment is important because at-risk persons can then be targeted for earlier assessment and intervention. Explorations of the factors that influence psychosocial adjustment in patients with oral cancer have been limited. Among the variables that have been a focus of interest in oral cancer, two of them may be particularly important in shaping psychosocial adjustment, namely disfigurement and social support.

    Disfigurement is defined as an observable and destructive alteration in appearance caused by damage to the skin, soft-tissue or bony structures.10 Despite the considerable advances in reconstructive surgery, many patients with oral cancer still endure facial disfigurement and encounter associated social stigmatisation.11 12 Facial disfigurement resulting from the cancer itself or its surgical treatment has been one of the most stressful aspects of oral cancer.13 This may be due to the fact that such disfigurement is usually very noticeable and difficult to keep hidden from sight.14 Moreover, the facial region is important to one’s identity, body image, communication and interpersonal relationships.15 16 Only a few studies have investigated the impacts of disfigurement on psychosocial adjustment in patients with oral cancer. In these studies, the degree of facial disfigurement was negatively associated with psychological and social functioning.17 18

    Social support is the other factor that may affect the psychosocial adjustment of patients with oral cancer . Social support involves providing psychological and material resources from a social network, with the intention of helping an individual cope with stress.19 Social support has been studied considerably with regard to the psychosocial well-being in cancer populations. The degree of support was found to be correlated with emotional well-being,20 psychosocial adjustment21 and quality of life.22 Although research has shown the benefits of social support in a number of cancer populations, oral cancer is not the same as other cancer patient populations. As mentioned above, patients with oral cancer often have problems with speech/communication and facial disfigurement after treatment. These issues can lead to social isolation and depression, and more or different support may be required through the disease trajectory. However, few studies exist regarding the influence of social support on psychosocial adjustment in patients with oral cancer, and the findings are equivocal. For example, Katz et al23 reported that social support was associated with positive adjustment. Clarke et al17 found that satisfaction with social support was not a significant predictor of appearance-related adjustment in patients with head and neck cancer. Thus, the purpose of the study was to explore the influence of facial disfigurement and social support on psychosocial adjustment in patients with oral cancer. We hypothesise that psychosocial maladjustment would be associated with more postsurgical disfigurement and less social support after controlling for sociodemographic and clinical variables.

    Methods

    Study design and setting

    This was a cross-sectional study. A convenience sample of patients with oral cancer was recruited from the otolaryngology and the oral and maxillofacial surgery outpatient clinics of three general hospitals in Taipei, Taiwan. A research nurse rated each participant’s facial disfigurement and administered the battery of self-reported research instruments. The data collection took place at the waiting areas outside the outpatient clinics during the patients’ visits to the clinics.

    Volunteers who met the following eligibility criteria were included: (1) diagnosed with stage I to IVA oral cancer, (2) had completed the primary treatment (surgery, chemotherapy or radiation therapy) for at least 1 month, (3) 18 years of age or older and (4) able to speak or read Mandarin. Potential participants were excluded if they were hospitalised within the past month or treated for a psychiatric illness. The desired sample size was estimated using G-Power software (V.3.1).24 Considering the number of potential predictors (n=15) in this study, a sample size of 68 would have 80% power to detect a large effect size of f2=0.35 with a 0.05 level of significance using a linear multiple regression fixed model.

    Patient and public involvement

    The development of the research question and hypothesis was informed by working closely with patients with oral cancer. However, patients and public were not involved in the recruitment to and conduct of the study. An abstract of the study results will be mailed to the study participants.

    Variables and measurements

    Sociodemographics including age, gender, education level, marital status, employment status, monthly income and financial hardship were collected from participants. Data on clinical variables, including tumour sites, cancer stages, type of cancer therapies and postsurgical period, were extracted from the participants’ medical records. Facial disfigurement was measured both objectively by using the Observer-Rated Facial Disfigurement 9-Point Likert Scale23 and subjectively by using the Patient-Rated Facial Disfigurement Visual Analogue Scale (VAS).25 A trained research nurse rated the participants’ facial disfigurement on a 9-point observer-rated disfigurement rating scale (1=minimal to 9=severe) with regard to the size and the visibility of the disfigured area, the extent of face/neck shape alteration and the degree of destruction in facial expression.25 The scale showed good discriminant and convergent validity and inter-rater reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.91) in previous studies.23 25 Participants were also administered the two-item Patient-Rated Facial Disfigurement VAS. They were asked to place a mark on a 100 mm horizontal line to represent the extent to which: (1) ‘their facial appearance had been altered by surgery’ and (2) ‘their surgery is apparent to other people’.25 Each scale is anchored by ‘not at all’ at the left end of the scale and ‘worst possible’ at the right end. The scale has shown good reliability and validity in a previous study.25 The two patient-rated items correlated significantly (r=0.76, p<0.001) and the patients’ self-rated facial disfigurement correlated significantly with surgeon-rated facial disfigurement(r=0.45, p=0.04).25

    The Social Support Scale26 was used to measure perceived social support. The 16-item scale covers four principal areas of social support: emotional, informational, appraisal and instrumental. For each item, the participants indicated how often within the last month they experienced support from their families and friends on a 4-point Likert scale. The total score of the 16 items represents support from families and friends. A higher score indicates greater support. The scale was developed in Chinese and validated for patients with cancer.26 In the current study, the Cronbach’s α values were 0.95, indicating good internal consistency.

    Psychosocial adjustment to illness was defined as the management of intrapsychic and social demands in response to physical disease.27 The Chinese version of the Psychosocial Adjustment to Illness Scale-Self Report (PAIS-SR)28 was used to measure psychosocial adjustment. The 46-item scale covers the following seven domains of psychosocial adjustment to illness: healthcare orientation, vocational rehabilitation, domestic environment, sexual relationships, extended family relationships, social environment and psychological distress.28 The participants indicated how much difficulty they experienced for each item within the last month on a 4-point Likert scale (0—no problem to 3—many difficulties). The total score for each domain represents the level of adjustment difficulty in a specific area. Each raw domain score was converted into a standardised area T-score (0–100) using the norm of mixed cancer patients provided by Derogatis and Derogatis.29 The total sum of the seven domain T-scores provides a total PAIS-SR score, with a possible range of 0–700. A higher score indicates a greater difficulty experienced by the patient. A cut-off score of 393 (equivalent to a T-score of 62 in mixed cancer patients) and above is positive for clinical levels of maladjustment.29 The scale has shown an acceptable level of reliability and validity in past studies involving cancer populations.21 29 30 The internal consistency (Cronbach’s α) in the current sample ranged from 0.65 to 0.89 for the domain scores and was 0.90 for the total score, indicating good reliability.

    Statistical methods

    Hierarchical multiple regression analyses were used to examine the influences of sociodemographic and clinical variables, disfigurement, and social support on psychosocial adjustment. Step 1 involved all sociodemographic and clinical variables. Step 2 included facial disfigurement and social support. Step 3 involved the interaction term of facial disfigurement and social support. Categorical variables were dummy coded prior to analysis. Standardised residual plots and collinearity statistics were used to check normality and independent assumptions of the regression analysis. Neither assumption was violated. Prior to analysis, missing data were examined. There were only two data values missing for each of the tumour site, cancer stage and disease duration variables and one data value missing for the disfigurement variable. Pairwise deletion was used in the correlation analysis and list-wise deletion was used in the regression analysis for handling missing data. All statistical analyses were conducted using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences V.20.0 (IBM). Sensitivity analyses of bivariate relationships between psychosocial adjustment and other study variables were presented in the online supplementary appendix.

    Supplementary file 1

    Results

    A total of 121 potentially eligible patients with oral cancer were approached; 27 individuals refused to participate and 12 individuals felt too ill to participate. A total of 77 participants were included in the study. Their average age was 53.04 years (range 34–81 years). The majority of participants were male (96.11%), married (76.62%), unemployed (72.73%) and with a monthly income less than NT$20 000 (71.05%). Most of them had buccal mucosa cancer (67.53%) and had been treated with surgeries and adjuvant therapies (59.74%). The average postsurgical period was 24.84 months (range 1–176 months) (table 1).

    View this table:
    Table 1

    Descriptive data of participants’ sociodemographic and clinical variables (n=77)

    The mean score of nurse-rated facial disfigurement was 4.75 (SD=2.07). The mean scores of two patient-rated facial disfigurement were 52.17 (SD=30.62) and 57.59 (SD=33.04) for appearance been altered and surgery apparent to others, respectively. The three disfigurement measures were highly correlated. Separate analyses were performed for them and the results were parallel. Therefore, the inferential analysis results were reported based on patient-rated surgery apparent to others. The mean score on social support was 39.06 (SD=9.40), which indicated a perception of fairly good support from family and friends. The average score on the PAIS-SR was 413.01 (SD=32.32), indicating that these participants were facing great challenges in adjusting to life beyond cancer (table 2). Using a score of 393 as the cut-off point, 55 (71.4%) patients scored positive for clinical levels of psychosocial maladjustment. The mean T-scores for each of the seven PAIS-SR domains ranged from 55.69 to 66.08. The patients reported the most difficulty in extended family relationships, followed by vocational environment, sexual relationships, social environment, healthcare orientation and psychological distress (table 2).

    View this table:
    Table 2

    Descriptive data of perceived disfigurement, social support, depression and psychosocial adjustment (n=77)

    Results of multiple regression analysis showed statistically significant main effects of tumour site (beta=0.37), facial disfigurement (beta=0.35) and social support (beta=−1.01), and the interaction effect of facial disfigurement and social support (beta=0.79) (all p<0.05) on psychosocial adjustment after controlling for other sociodemographic and clinical variables. All variables together explained 62% of the variance in psychosocial adjustment (F(16, 55)=14.98, p<0.001) (table 3).

    View this table:
    Table 3

    Hierarchical regression analysis of predictors of psychosocial adjustment (n=77)

    Discussion

    In this cross-sectional study, we have examined the inter-relationship among individual characteristics, disfigurement and social support in shaping psychosocial adjustment in patients with oral cancer. Results showed that tumour site, facial disfigurement, social support, as well as the interaction term of facial disfigurement and social support were statistically significant predictors of psychosocial adjustment. Poorer psychosocial adjustment was reported by patients with more severe facial disfigurement and less social support. Patients with cancers in other areas of the oral cavity (tongue, gingiva, mouth floor or lips) also reported poorer psychosocial adjustment than patients with cancers in the buccal mucosa. The associations with psychosocial adjustment for facial disfigurement and social support were independent of sociodemographic and clinical variables. These results suggest that patients with oral cancer with severe facial disfigurement are at particular risk for problems with psychosocial adjustment. Social support has been shown to have a direct supportive effect for psychosocial adjustment and also buffer the detrimental effects of facial disfigurement on psychosocial adjustment. In addition, the difference in adjustment observed between patients with different tumour sites can also be related to how extensive their surgeries were. For example, patients with cancer of tongue may receive partial or complete glossectomy and patients with gingival cancer may undergo mandibulectomy.

    Adequate psychosocial adjustment is crucial for patients with oral cancer to cope with multiple stressors of their disease and to balance their lives within the restrictions imposed by the long-term sequelae of cancer treatments.2 31 Maladjustment can result in problems with interpersonal relationships and psychological distress.32 The results of the study indicate that the psychosocial adjustments after oral cancer vary widely. Overall, the study participants reported a poorer adjustment score than what was reported in a previous study with patients with head and neck cancer.33 Using PAIS-SR T-score of 62 as the cut-off point for clinical levels of maladjustment suggested by Derogatis and Derogatis29, 71% of our participants tested positive.

    Facial deformity seriously affects an individual’s body image and communication.7 Postoperative patients with oral cancer often suffer setbacks in interpersonal interactions due to their appearance; resulting in withdrawal, alienation and social isolation.34 35 Only a few studies have investigated the impacts of disfigurement on psychosocial adjustment in patients with oral cancer. In these studies, the level of facial disfigurement was negatively associated with psychological and social functioning.17 35 Fear of negative evaluation has also been found to be a statistically significant predictor of adjustment.17 We used both objective and subjective measures of facial disfigurement and yielded similar results, which support the negative impact of facial disfigurement on psychosocial adjustment. This finding is consistent with other reports in the head and neck cancer literature.5 17 18

    In the current study, 72.73% of participants are unemployed. Although it is hard to know whether this high unemployment rate is due to the disease or the disfigurement, we found a significantly higher level of facial disfigurement in the unemployed participants than in the employed participants. This finding suggests that facial disfigurement may also negatively affect an individual’s work status.36

    Social support is another important factor which may facilitate postoperative psychosocial adjustment in patients with oral cancer. In this study, we found a statistically significant direct effect of social support on psychosocial adjustment. This is consistent with findings in the cancer literature that have shown a positive association between the degree of social support and the extent of psychosocial adjustment.21 23 We also found a statistically significant interaction effect of social support and facial disfigurement on psychosocial adjustment. These findings indicate that social support benefits occur through both a direct effect and by way of a moderating mechanism shaping the extent to which facial disfigurement affect psychosocial adjustment. Collectively, these results support the importance of social support for facilitating adaptation to cancer survivorship.

    The limitations of this study include the following: it was cross-sectional, involved a small convenience sample and excluded patients without reconstructive surgeries. These factors limit the generalisability of the findings to patients with oral cancer as a whole. Moreover, the cross-sectional nature of the study precluded an assessment of the evolution of psychosocial adjustment with disease progression and did not permit us to determine causal relationships among the study variables. Replication of the findings with a larger sample size, a longitudinal study design and the examinations of other moderating variables are warranted. For example, habits such as smoking, betel nut chewing and alcohol consumption may add additional explanations to the variations of psychosocial adjustment in patients with oral cancer, as these unhealthy habits are strongly related to oral cancers and make a difference on patients’ perspectives about their disease (self-blame, self-stigmatised). Gender differences in psychosocial adjustment have been reported in a previous study of head and neck cancer survivors.23 Females reported higher levels of appearance-related distress than males. However, due to having only three female participants in the current study, we were unable to examine the gender difference in psychosocial adjustment among patients with oral cancer. Nevertheless, the study results present evidence for the importance of facial disfigurement, and social support on the psychosocial adjustment in patients with oral cancer.

    The study findings are relevant to the understanding of prerequisites that empower patients with oral cancer to successfully adjust to the diverse consequences of cancer and its treatments. Clinicians who work with patients with oral cancer should engage in an ongoing psychosocial assessment and appropriate referral may be needed. Psychosocial health services can enable patients with oral cancer to manage the psychological and social aspects of their health and thereby promote better adjustment. Future studies exploring the social-cognitive predictors of psychosocial adjustment will further inform the development of effective psychosocial interventions for oral cancer populations.

    Acknowledgments

    The authors thank all the patients participated in this study.

    References

    1. 1.↵
      1. Chen SC
      . Life experiences of Taiwanese oral cancer patients during the postoperative period. Scand J Caring Sci 2012;26:98–103.doi:10.1111/j.1471-6712.2011.00914.x
      OpenUrlPubMed
    2. 2.↵
      1. Fingeret MC,
      2. Yuan Y,
      3. Urbauer D, et al
      . The nature and extent of body image concerns among surgically treated patients with head and neck cancer. Psychooncology 2012;21:836–44.doi:10.1002/pon.1990
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    3. 3.↵
      1. Rieke K,
      2. Schmid KK,
      3. Lydiatt W, et al
      . Depression and survival in head and neck cancer patients. Oral Oncol 2017;65:76–82.doi:10.1016/j.oraloncology.2016.12.014
      OpenUrl
    4. 4.↵
      1. Graner KM,
      2. Rolim GS,
      3. Moraes ABA, et al
      . Feelings, perceptions, and expectations of patients during the process of oral cancer diagnosis. Support Care Cancer 2016;24:2323–32.doi:10.1007/s00520-015-3030-0
      OpenUrl
    5. 5.↵
      1. Rhoten BA,
      2. Murphy B,
      3. Ridner SH
      . Body image in patients with head and neck cancer: a review of the literature. Oral Oncol 2013;49:753–60.doi:10.1016/j.oraloncology.2013.04.005
      OpenUrl
    6. 6.↵
      1. van Deudekom FJ,
      2. Schimberg AS,
      3. Kallenberg MH, et al
      . Functional and cognitive impairment, social environment, frailty and adverse health outcomes in older patients with head and neck cancer, a systematic review. Oral Oncol 2017;64:27–36.doi:10.1016/j.oraloncology.2016.11.013
      OpenUrl
    7. 7.↵
      1. Doss JG,
      2. Ghani WMN,
      3. Razak IA, et al
      . Changes in health-related quality of life of oral cancer patients treated with curative intent: experience of a developing country. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2017;46:687–98.doi:10.1016/j.ijom.2017.02.1269
      OpenUrl
    8. 8.↵
      1. Kumar CD,
      2. Joseph J,
      3. Janakiram C, et al
      . Health-related quality of life and the perceived palliative care needs among oral cancer patients. J Indian Assoc Public Health Dent 2017;15:327–33.
      OpenUrl
    9. 9.↵
      1. Verdonck-de Leeuw IM,
      2. de Bree R,
      3. Keizer AL, et al
      . Computerized prospective screening for high levels of emotional distress in head and neck cancer patients and referral rate to psychosocial care. Oral Oncol 2009;45:e129–e133.doi:10.1016/j.oraloncology.2009.01.012
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    10. 10.↵
      1. Katz MR,
      2. Irish JC,
      3. Devins GM, et al
      . Reliability and validity of an observer-rated disfigurement scale for head and neck cancer patients. Head Neck 2000;22:132–41.doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097-0347(200003)22:2<132::AID-HED4>3.0.CO;2-K
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    11. 11.↵
      1. Threader J,
      2. McCormack L
      . Cancer-related trauma, stigma and growth: the ‘lived’ experience of head and neck cancer. Eur J Cancer Care 2016;25:157–69.doi:10.1111/ecc.12320
      OpenUrl
    12. 12.↵
      1. Bonanno A,
      2. Esmaeli B
      . Cancer and facial disfigurement: reducing survivors' stigma in social interaction. Clin J Oncol Nurs 2012;16:153–9.doi:10.1188/12.CJON.153-159
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    13. 13.↵
      1. Costa EF,
      2. Nogueira TE,
      3. de Souza Lima NC, et al
      . A qualitative study of the dimensions of patients’ perceptions of facial disfigurement after head and neck cancer surgery. Special Care in Dentistry 2014;34:114–21.doi:10.1111/scd.12039
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    14. 14.↵
      1. Deshpande A,
      2. Ghooi R
      . Narrative: The fear of disfigurement in cancer patients. Indian J Palliat Care 2017;23:347.doi:10.4103/IJPC.IJPC_33_17
      OpenUrl
    15. 15.↵
      1. Halliwell E,
      2. Diedrichs P
      . Influence of the media. The Oxford Handbook of the Psychology of Appearance. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012:217–38.
    16. 16.↵
      1. Messner C,
      2. Vera T,
      3. Washington C, et al
      . Issues of self-image, disfigurement, and sadness in people living with cancer. The Oncol Pharmacist 20132013;6:22–6.
      OpenUrl
    17. 17.↵
      1. Clarke SA,
      2. Newell R,
      3. Thompson A, et al
      . Appearance concerns and psychosocial adjustment following head and neck cancer: A cross-sectional study and nine-month follow-up. Psychol Health Med 2014;19:505–18.doi:10.1080/13548506.2013.855319
      OpenUrl
    18. 18.↵
      1. Rana M,
      2. Gellrich NC,
      3. Czens F, et al
      . Coping with oral cancer: the impact of health and disease-related personality traits. Support Care Cancer 2014;22:2981–6.doi:10.1007/s00520-014-2300-6
      OpenUrl
    19. 19.↵
      1. Lakey B,
      2. Orehek E
      . Relational regulation theory: a new approach to explain the link between perceived social support and mental health. Psychol Rev 2011;118:482–95.doi:10.1037/a0023477
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    20. 20.↵
      1. Chen SC,
      2. Huang BS,
      3. Lin CY
      . Depression and predictors in Taiwanese survivors with oral cancer. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2013;14:4571–6.doi:10.7314/APJCP.2013.14.8.4571
      OpenUrl
    21. 21.↵
      1. Rizalar S,
      2. Ozbas A,
      3. Akyolcu N, et al
      . Effect of perceived social support on psychosocial adjustment of Turkish patients with breast cancer. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2014;15:3429–34.doi:10.7314/APJCP.2014.15.8.3429
      OpenUrl
    22. 22.↵
      1. Li MY,
      2. Yang YL,
      3. Liu L, et al
      . Effects of social support, hope and resilience on quality of life among Chinese bladder cancer patients: a cross-sectional study. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2016;14:73.doi:10.1186/s12955-016-0481-z
      OpenUrl
    23. 23.↵
      1. Katz MR,
      2. Irish JC,
      3. Devins GM, et al
      . Psychosocial adjustment in head and neck cancer: the impact of disfigurement, gender and social support. Head Neck 2003;25:103–12.doi:10.1002/hed.10174
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    24. 24.↵
      1. Faul F,
      2. Erdfelder E,
      3. Lang AG, et al
      . G*Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods 2007;39:175–91.doi:10.3758/BF03193146
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    25. 25.↵
      1. Lueg EA,
      2. Irish JC,
      3. Katz MR, et al
      . A patient- and observer-rated analysis of the impact of lateral rhinotomy on facial aesthetics. Arch Facial Plast Surg 2001;3:241–4.doi:10.1001/archfaci.3.4.241
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    26. 26.↵
      1. Wang S-M,
      2. N-p K,
      3. Lin H-T, et al
      . The relationships of symptom distress, social support and self-care behaviors in heart transplant recipients. J Nurs Res 1998;6:4–18.
      OpenUrl
    27. 27.↵
      1. Derogatis LR,
      2. Fleming MP,
      3. Sudler NC, et al
      . Psychological assessment. In: Nicassio PA, Smith PA, eds. Managing Chronic Illness: A Biopsychosocial PerspectiveAmerican Psychological Association. DC: Washington, 1995:59–115.
    28. 28.↵
      1. Derogatis LR
      . The psychosocial adjustment to illness scale (PAIS). J Psychosom Res 1986;30:77–91.doi:10.1016/0022-3999(86)90069-3
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    29. 29.↵
      1. Derogatis LR,
      2. Derogatis MA. P
      . PAIS & PAIS-SR: Administration, Scoring & Procedures Manual-II. Baltimore. Baltimore, MD: Clinical Psychometric Research, 1990.
    30. 30.↵
      1. Derogatis LR,
      2. Fleming MP
      . Psychosocial adjustment to illness scale. Spilker B, ed. Quality of Life and Pharmacoeconomics in Clinical Trials. 2nd Ed. New York: NY: Raven Press, 1996:347–54.
    31. 31.↵
      1. Tsui WY,
      2. Lin KC,
      3. Huang HC
      . An investigation of body image changes and coping behaviors in oral cancer patients following surgery. J Nurs Healthcare Res 2013;9:127–38.
      OpenUrl
    32. 32.↵
      1. Badri A,
      2. Van den Borne HW,
      3. Crutzen R
      . Experiences and psychosocial adjustment of Darfuri female students affected by war: an exploratory study. Int J Psychol 2013;48:944–53.doi:10.1080/00207594.2012.696652
      OpenUrl
    33. 33.↵
      1. de Leeuw J,
      2. Prins JB,
      3. Teerenstra S, et al
      . Nurse-led follow-up care for head and neck cancer patients: a quasi-experimental prospective trial. Support Care Cancer 2013;21:537–47.doi:10.1007/s00520-012-1553-1
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    34. 34.↵
      1. Fingeret MC,
      2. Vidrine DJ,
      3. Reece GP, et al
      . Multidimensional analysis of body image concerns among newly diagnosed patients with oral cavity cancer. Head Neck 2010;32:301–9.doi:10.1002/hed.21181
      OpenUrlPubMed
    35. 35.↵
      1. Flexen J,
      2. Ghazali N,
      3. Lowe D, et al
      . Identifying appearance-related concerns in routine follow-up clinics following treatment for oral and oropharyngeal cancer. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2012;50:314–20.doi:10.1016/j.bjoms.2011.05.005
      OpenUrlPubMed
    36. 36.↵
      1. Arunachalam D,
      2. Thirumoorthy A,
      3. Devi S, et al
      . Quality of Life in Cancer Patients with Disfigurement due to Cancer and its Treatments. Indian J Palliat Care 2011;17:184–90.doi:10.4103/0973-1075.92334
      OpenUrlPubMed

    Footnotes

    • Contributors All authors listed have read the manuscript, approved the validity and legitimacy of the data and its interpretation, and agree to the submission of the manuscript to the BMJ open. All authors adhere to the ICMJE expectations for authorship and the specific contributions of each author to the manuscript are as following: T-JW: conception and design, analysis and interpretation of data, drafting and revising the manuscript. M-HL: conception and design, acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation of data, revising the manuscript critically. P-LK: analysis and interpretation of data, drafting and revising the manuscript critically. WWC: acquisition of data, revising the manuscript critically. S-CL: acquisition of data, revising the manuscript critically. S-YL: revising the manuscript critically.

    • Funding This work was supported by The Ministry of Science and Technology of the Republic of China, grant number (97-2314-B-227-002-MY2).

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Patient consent Not required.

    • Ethics approval Institutional Review Board approvals were obtained from the Tri-Service General Hospital (TSGH-IRB: 097-05-143).

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

    • Data sharing statement All available data can be obtained by contacting the corresponding author.