Sarah D Kowitt1, Katrina R Ellis2, Veronica Carlisle3,4, Nivedita L Bhushan4,5, Kristin Z Black6, Kaitlyn Brodar7, Nicole M Cranley5, Kia L Davis8, Eugenia Eng3,5, Michelle Y Martin9, Jared McGuirt10, Rebeccah L Sokol5, Patrick Y Tang4,5, Anissa I Vines3,11, Jennifer S Walker12, Edwin B Fisher3,4,5. 1. Department of Family Medicine, School of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. kowitt@unc.edu. 2. School of Social Work, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. 3. Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. 4. Peers for Progress, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. 5. Department of Health Behavior, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. 6. Department of Health Education and Promotion, College of Health and Human Performance, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC, USA. 7. Department of Psychology, University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL, USA. 8. Division of Public Health Sciences, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA. 9. Center for Innovation in Health Equity Research and Department of Preventive Medicine, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, TN, USA. 10. Department of Nutrition, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Greensboro, NC, USA. 11. Department of Epidemiology, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. 12. Health Sciences Library, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Evidence suggests peer support (PS) is as an effective strategy for enhancing prevention and control of chronic and infectious diseases, including cancer. This systematic scoping review examines the range and variety of interventions on the use of PS across the cancer care continuum. METHOD: We used a broad definition of PS to capture a wide-range of interventions and characterize the current status of the field. Literature searches were conducted using PubMed, SCOPUS, and CINAHL to identify relevant articles published from January 2011 to June 2016. We screened the title and abstracts of 2087 articles, followed by full-text screening of 420 articles, resulting in a final sample of 242 articles of which the most recent 100 articles were reviewed (published June 2014 to May 2016). RESULTS: A number of the recent intervention studies focused on breast cancer (32%, breast cancer only) or multiple cancer sites (23%). Although the interventions spanned all phases of the cancer care continuum, only 2% targeted end-of-life care. Seventy-six percent focused on clinical outcomes (e.g., screening, treatment adherence) and 72% on reducing health disparities. Interventions were primarily phone-based (44%) or delivered in a clinic setting (44%). Only a few studies (22%) described the impact of providing PS on peer supporters. CONCLUSION: PS appears to be a widely used approach to address needs across the cancer care continuum, with many opportunities to expand its reach.
OBJECTIVE: Evidence suggests peer support (PS) is as an effective strategy for enhancing prevention and control of chronic and infectious diseases, including cancer. This systematic scoping review examines the range and variety of interventions on the use of PS across the cancer care continuum. METHOD: We used a broad definition of PS to capture a wide-range of interventions and characterize the current status of the field. Literature searches were conducted using PubMed, SCOPUS, and CINAHL to identify relevant articles published from January 2011 to June 2016. We screened the title and abstracts of 2087 articles, followed by full-text screening of 420 articles, resulting in a final sample of 242 articles of which the most recent 100 articles were reviewed (published June 2014 to May 2016). RESULTS: A number of the recent intervention studies focused on breast cancer (32%, breast cancer only) or multiple cancer sites (23%). Although the interventions spanned all phases of the cancer care continuum, only 2% targeted end-of-life care. Seventy-six percent focused on clinical outcomes (e.g., screening, treatment adherence) and 72% on reducing health disparities. Interventions were primarily phone-based (44%) or delivered in a clinic setting (44%). Only a few studies (22%) described the impact of providing PS on peer supporters. CONCLUSION: PS appears to be a widely used approach to address needs across the cancer care continuum, with many opportunities to expand its reach.
Entities:
Keywords:
Cancer; Community health workers; Navigator; Oncology; Peer support; Social support
Authors: Phyllis N Butow; Fiona Phillips; Janine Schweder; Kate White; Craig Underhill; David Goldstein Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2011-09-29 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Robert Thielke; Jonathon Payne; Nathaniel Gonzalez; Jose G Conde Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2008-09-30 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Edwin B Fisher; Muchieh Maggy Coufal; Humberto Parada; Jennifer B Robinette; Patrick Y Tang; Diana M Urlaub; Claudia Castillo; Laura M Guzman-Corrales; Sayaka Hino; Jaimie Hunter; Ariana W Katz; Yael R Symes; Heidi P Worley; Cuirong Xu Journal: Annu Rev Public Health Date: 2014-01-02 Impact factor: 21.981
Authors: Micah D J Peters; Christina M Godfrey; Hanan Khalil; Patricia McInerney; Deborah Parker; Cassia Baldini Soares Journal: Int J Evid Based Healthc Date: 2015-09
Authors: Claudia Allemani; Hannah K Weir; Helena Carreira; Rhea Harewood; Devon Spika; Xiao-Si Wang; Finian Bannon; Jane V Ahn; Christopher J Johnson; Audrey Bonaventure; Rafael Marcos-Gragera; Charles Stiller; Gulnar Azevedo e Silva; Wan-Qing Chen; Olufemi J Ogunbiyi; Bernard Rachet; Matthew J Soeberg; Hui You; Tomohiro Matsuda; Magdalena Bielska-Lasota; Hans Storm; Thomas C Tucker; Michel P Coleman Journal: Lancet Date: 2014-11-26 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Edwin B Fisher; Renée I Boothroyd; Emily A Elstad; Laura Hays; Amy Henes; Gary R Maslow; Clayton Velicer Journal: Clin Diabetes Endocrinol Date: 2017-05-25
Authors: Brenda K Edwards; Anne-Michelle Noone; Angela B Mariotto; Edgar P Simard; Francis P Boscoe; S Jane Henley; Ahmedin Jemal; Hyunsoon Cho; Robert N Anderson; Betsy A Kohler; Christie R Eheman; Elizabeth M Ward Journal: Cancer Date: 2013-12-16 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: M Gonzalez-Saenz de Tejada; A Bilbao; M Baré; E Briones; C Sarasqueta; J M Quintana; A Escobar Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2015-11-18 Impact factor: 3.894
Authors: Susan A Sabatino; Mary C White; Trevor D Thompson; Carrie N Klabunde Journal: MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep Date: 2015-05-08 Impact factor: 17.586
Authors: Catherine Henckel; Anna Revette; Scott F Huntington; James A Tulsky; Gregory A Abel; Oreofe O Odejide Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2020-01-09 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Hermioni L Amonoo; Lauren E Harnedy; Sophie C Staton; Regina M Longley; Elizabeth Daskalakis; Areej El-Jawahri; Jeff C Huffman Journal: Bone Marrow Transplant Date: 2022-05-21 Impact factor: 5.174
Authors: Susan Magasi; Jennifer Banas; Bruriah Horowitz; Judy Panko Reis; Kimberly The; Tom Wilson; David Victoson Journal: Prog Community Health Partnersh Date: 2019
Authors: Katrina R Ellis; Kristin Z Black; Stephanie Baker; Carol Cothern; Kia Davis; Kay Doost; Christina Goestch; Ida Griesemer; Fatima Guerrab; Alexandra F Lightfoot; Neda Padilla; Cleo A Samuel; Jennifer C Schaal; Christina Yongue; Eugenia Eng Journal: Fam Community Health Date: 2020 Jul/Sep
Authors: Jacob P Beckerman-Hsu; Cristina Gago; Alyssa Aftosmes-Tobio; Janine M Jurkowski; Kindra Lansburg; Jessie Leonard; Merieka Torrico; Sebastien Haneuse; S V Subramanian; Erica L Kenney; Kirsten K Davison Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2021-01-22 Impact factor: 3.295