Table 2.
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).