Table 3.
Variable | Number of studies (%) |
---|---|
Length of peer support contact | |
Less than 1 month | 20 (20.0) |
Between 1 month and less than 6 months | 16(16.0) |
Greater than 6 months | 17(17.0) |
Not reported or unclear | 47 (47.0) |
Study Design | |
Randomized Controlled Trial | 26 (26.0) |
Cluster-randomized Randomized Controlled Trial | 6 (6.0) |
Quasi-experimental | 9 (9.0) |
Other controlled triala | 2 (2.0) |
Single group pre-post | 19(19.0) |
Descriptive or observational | 30 (30.0) |
Otherb | 4 (4.0) |
Not reported | 4 (4.0) |
Study Funding | |
Federal | 37 (37.0) |
Private (state or regional foundation) | 4 (4.0) |
Private (national foundation) | 12(12.0) |
State / local government | 4 (4.0) |
Pharmaceutical | 0(0) |
Other | 3 (3.0) |
Multiple c | 27 (27.0) |
Not reported | 13 (13.0) |
Study Outcomes | |
Recipient engagement in clinical care | 43 (43.0) |
Behavioral risk | 2 (2.0) |
Quality of life | 0(0) |
Mental health | 0(0) |
Other psychosocial outcomes d | 8 (8.0) |
Cancer progression and other clinical outcomes | 0(0) |
Othere | 4 (4.0) |
Multiple f | 40 (40.0) |
Not reported | 3 (43.0) |
Examples: “Cluster-randomized at clinic level, randomized at individual level” and “group-randomized trial with nested cohort design”
Examples: “Simulation” or “multiple types of study designs”
The most common type of funding combination was federal and private (n=11, 11% of all studies).
Examples: appraisal, self-efficacy, social support, attitudes, optimism, intentions, knowledge)
Examples: “cost”, “feasibility or process evaluation outcomes”, “sexual function”, etc.
The most common type of combination was recipient engagement in clinical care and psychosocial outcomes (n=16, 16% of all studies).