Table 4.

Mixed-type (technology- and non-technology-based) interventions, social integration component of the intervention, results, and implications of the interventions.

Author (Year)	Intervention(s) Description	Control Group (CG) Description	Intervention Duration	Social Cognitive Theory Component of the Intervention	Results	Implication
Chen (2019) [53]	Participants were given an educational manual based on social interaction theory that focused on survivors’ experiences with treatment, side effects, hygiene, social interaction skills, and supportive psychological care. Then, a nurse facilitated the behavior changes and health education group sessions focused on social interactions, verbal/nonverbal behaviors used for communication and interaction with others, and group discussions. A video of the course was provided for practice after the lessons. After the course ended, telephone calls were made to remind participants about the course content and the importance of behavior modification.	Participants in the control group received routine care only and were given the option to participate in the intervention after the trial completion.	12 weeks	Coping (physical), coping (affect), practice new skills in or outside the intervention, cancer survivor testimony	Intervention group reported less fear of social interactions (p < 0.05), less avoidance of social interactions (p < 0.05), and better physical function (p < 0.01) versus controls. Intervention group at 3 months post intervention had less depression than at baseline (p < 0.001).	Behavior changes and health education intervention can improve social interactions and health outcomes in head and neck cancer survivors.
Lee (2013) [47]	Peer support partners met with participants either face-to-face or by telephone for at least 20 min. Face-to-face meetings were conducted at a coffee shop or at the patient’s home to provide a comfortable environment to chat with their peer. Intervention emphasized a supportive environment, helping to reduce emotional distress or physical discomforts, as participants discussed problems typical after surgery. The intervention provided one-on-one interaction and mutual support, sharing feelings, information, and promotion of self-confidence.	Participants in the control group received usual care only.	6 weeks	Self-monitoring of skills/thoughts/etc., cancer survivor/patient testimony	Intervention group reported an increase in self-efficacy for self-management (p = 0.043) versus controls No significant differences were observed in anxiety, depression, and mental adjustment between the groups.	Dyadic peer support intervention can increase self-efficacy among newly diagnosed breast cancer patients.
Park (2012) [48]	Participants were provided individual face-to-face education with a handbook with information on the survivors’ experience, six telephone-delivered health coaching sessions, and three small group meetings. The individual meetings focused on preventing, identifying, and resolving problems and developing coping and management strategies. Telephone sessions focused on individualized management plans. Group meetings included 5–8 women who discussed common health issues they experienced, emotional stress, burden, diet, and exercise.	Participants received standard care from their medical team. They received a short booklet with cancer information, treatment adverse effects, follow-up care, and healthy eating and were suggested to contact their healthcare team for follow-up care. At the end of the study, the control group participants were invited to participate in the intervention program.	12 weeks	Coping (physical), coping (affect), cancer survivor/patient testimony	Intervention group had higher QOL (p = 0.009), social well-being (p = 0.032), emotional well-being (p = 0.031), functional well-being (p = 0.036), lower overall symptoms (p = 0.011), and lower psychological symptom distress (p = 0.032) versus controls. There was also a significant time-by-group interaction effect for QOL (p = 0.014), emotional well-being (p < 0.001), overall symptoms (p = 0.001), and psychological symptom distress (p < 0.001), where the intervention group improved over time versus controls.	The psychoeducational support program may improve QOL and symptom experiences in breast cancer survivors.
Ye (2016) [40]	Peer mentors (breast cancer survivors) were matched with a participant based on demographics. Educational sessions included topics such as surgical treatment, music therapy, traditional Chinese medicine, and Taiichi. Educational sessions were followed by group discussions where mentors and mentees (usually in 2–3 pairs) discussed topics and mentors provided support and advice, shared personal feelings, and mentees could ask any questions. Small group discussions between mentor and mentee provided opportunities for participants to share any personal feelings that they would not feel comfortable sharing in a large group setting. Mentors called mentees at least once per week to remind them of the upcoming session and see if they had any concerns.	Participants in the control group received usual care. Participants were offered to participate in the intervention after the completion of the study.	8 weeks	Cancer survivor/patient testimony	At 2 months, the intervention group had lower depression (Cohen’s d = 0.65, p = 0.0019), better hope (Cohen’s d = 0.81, p < 0.001), and better QOL (Cohen’s d = 0.60, p = 0.002) versus controls. At 6 months, the intervention group had lower anxiety (Cohen’s d = 0.74, p < 0.001), fatigue (Cohen’s d = 0.65, p < 0.001), better social support (Cohen’s d = 0.51, p = 0.009), and more resilience (Cohen’s d = 0.83, p < 0.001) versus controls. At 12 months, the intervention group reported better cognitive function (Cohen’s d = 0.55, p < 0.001) versus controls.	Multidiscipline mentor-based intervention may improve positive health outcomes and reduce the risk of distress associated with breast cancer.

Note: QOL = quality-of-life. In all interventions, participants were randomly assigned to intervention or control groups, except Park (2012) randomized using the even and odd number in the last digit of the participant’s identification number.