Table 2.
Program Characteristics
| Variable | Number of studies (%) |
|---|---|
| Program setting for intervention delivery | |
| Clinic | 40 (40.0) |
| Community | 14 (14.0) |
| Faith-based location | 3 (3.0) |
| Home | 6 (6.0) |
| School | 0 (0) |
| University | 0 (0) |
| Worksite | 0 (0) |
| Other a | 3 (3.0) |
| Multiple b | 23 (23.0) |
| Not reported or unclear | 1 (1.0) |
| Not applicable (technology or phone-call based) | 10 (10.0) |
| Modality for intervention delivery | |
| In-person | 60 (60.0) |
| Technology | 2 (2.0) |
| Phone-call | 8 (8.0) |
| Multiple | 29 (29.0) |
| Not reported or unclear | 1 (1.0) |
| Cancer care continuum | |
| Prevention | 6 (6.0) |
| Screening | 37 (37.0) |
| Diagnosis (decision-making) | 4 (4.0) |
| Treatment | 13 (13.0) |
| Survivorship | 9 (9.0) |
| Palliative Care | 0 (0) |
| End-of-life Care c | 0 (0) |
| Multiple continuum foci d | 28 (28.0) |
| Not reported or unclear | 3 (3.0) |
| Cancer type | |
| Breast | 32 (32.0) |
| Prostate | 6 (6.0) |
| Lung e | 2 (2.0) |
| Colorectal | 16 (16.0) |
| Brain | 1 (1.0) |
| Gynecological | 11 (11.0) |
| Liver | 0 (0) |
| Cancer type, continued | |
| Skin | 1 (1.0) |
| Other f | 3 (3.0) |
| Multiple g | 23 (23.0) |
| Not reported or unclear | 5 (5.0) |
| Disparities discussed in stated purpose or hypotheses of program | |
| No | 34 (34.0) |
| Yes | 66 (66.0) |
| Type of disparity | |
| Race / ethnicity | 31 (31.0) |
| Gender | 0 (0) |
| Age | 0 (0) |
| Geographic location | 1 (1.0) |
| Socioeconomic status | 2 (2.0) |
| Other | 1 (1.0) |
| Multiple h | 31 (31.0) |
| Not applicable (disparity not discussed) | 34 (34.0) |
| Peer Training content/curriculum described in article | |
| No | 56 (56.0) |
| Yes | 44 (44.0) |
| Navigation included in program | |
| No | 45 (45.0) |
| Yes | 55 (55.0) |
| Person responsible for initial contact | |
| Peer supporter | 65 (65.0) |
| Recipient | 2 (2.0) |
| Both | 1 (1.0) |
| Not reported or unclear | 32 (32.0) |
| Formal certification requirement for peer supporters | |
| No | 91 (91.0) |
| Yes | 9 (9.0) |
| Use of theory i | |
| No | 27 (27.0) |
| Yes | 29 (29.0) |
| Not reported or unclear | 44 (43.0) |
| Peer supporters discussed as part of health care team | |
| No | 74 (74.0) |
| Yes | 26 (26.0) |
| Spirituality discussed | |
| No | 95 (95.0) |
| Yes | 5 (5.0) |
| Family involved | |
| No | 82 (82.0) |
| Yes, required inclusion | 4 (4.0) |
| Yes, invited inclusion | 14 (14.0) |
| Impacts on peer supporter discussed | |
| No | 96 (96.0) |
| Yes | 4 (4.0) |
Example: mail
The most common combination was 2 settings (n=18). Of these types of setting combinations, the most common combination was clinic-based and community-based (n=9, 9% of all studies).
Note, one article discussed treatment, survivorship, palliative care, and end-of-life care. Another article focused on every point of the continuum.
The most common combination was screening & diagnosis (n=11, 11% of all studies).
Note, 5 articles in total discussed lung cancer. However, 1 of these articles discussed lung cancer and esophageal and 2 of these articles discussed lung cancer and multiple other types of cancer.
Example: esophageal cancer.
The most common type of combination was breast and gynecological (n=9, 9% of all studies).
Most studies focused on two disparities (n=23), while 7 articles of articles focused on 3 disparities and 1 article focused on 5 disparities. The most common type of disparity combination was race/ethnicity and SES (n=17, 17% of all studies).
Variable refers to whether theories, models, or frameworks were seriously and substantively applied in the article (e.g., using constructs in program development, design, or evaluation).