Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2020 Jan 1.
Published in final edited form as: Support Care Cancer. 2018 Oct 6;27(1):97–108. doi: 10.1007/s00520-018-4479-4

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)
a

Example: mail

b

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).

c

Note, one article discussed treatment, survivorship, palliative care, and end-of-life care. Another article focused on every point of the continuum.

d

The most common combination was screening & diagnosis (n=11, 11% of all studies).

e

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.

f

Example: esophageal cancer.

g

The most common type of combination was breast and gynecological (n=9, 9% of all studies).

h

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).

i

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).