Search PubMed⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 15476984

Cancer peer support programs-do they work?

H Sharon Campbell·Marie Rose Phaneuf·Karen Deane
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Cancer can be a devastating diagnosis, creating social, emotional, financial and psychological problems. Peer support programs are based on the premise that support from others who have been through a similar experience can help reduce the negative impacts of this disease. While there is strong theoretical rationale for this, empirical evidence that would guide program planning is scarce. We conducted a systematic literature review of evaluation studies published over the last 20 years. Seventeen volunteers delivered peer support programs were reviewed, ranging from needs assessments to randomized controlled trials. The scientific quality was moderate--most lacked a theoretical framework, adequate program descriptions, data on non-participants and validated instruments. Despite these methodological shortcomings, consistent informational, emotional and instrumental benefits were identified. We provide recommendations for practitioners to improve evaluation studies and suggest a research agenda to develop better methods for assessing the contribution of peer support to quality of life.

Explore related subjects

Cost of IllnessData CollectionHumansNeeds AssessmentNeoplasmsOutcome Assessment, Health CarePeer GroupProgram EvaluationQuality of LifeRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicReproducibility of ResultsResearch DesignSelf-Help GroupsSocial SupportJournal ArticleSystematic Review

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

H Sharon Campbell, Marie Rose Phaneuf, Karen Deane. 2004. Cancer peer support programs-do they work?. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2003.10.001

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2007

Economic aspects of diabetic foot care in a multidisciplinary setting: a review.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the economic aspects of diabetic foot care in a multidisciplinary setting. METHOD: A review of the English language literature, published from 1966 to November 2005. RESULTS: The results of available studies on the cost-of-illness of diabetic foot problems are difficult to compare. Nevertheless trends concerning excess of costs, protraction in time of costs, positive correlation to severity of ulcer and/or peripheral vascular disease, contribution of in-hospital stay and length of stay, and the patient's own contribution to total costs, are obvious. Only a few cost-effectiveness and cost-utility studies are available. Most use a Markov based model to predict outcome and show an acceptable result on long-term. CONCLUSIONS: Diabetic foot problems are frequent and are associated with high costs. A multidisciplinary approach to diabetic foot problems has proved to be cost saving with regard to cost of treatment itself. Nevertheless, it remained unclear if these savings could offset the overall costs involved in implementing this kind of approach. The few studies that address this issue specifically all show an acceptable cost-effectiveness, but often the profit will be evident after some years only, because long-term costs are involved. Based on these data, policymakers should foresee sufficient reimbursement for preventive and early curative measures, and not only for 'salvage manoeuvres'.

Cost of Illness↗
PubMed2007

Incidence and economic burden of osteoporosis-related fractures in the United States, 2005-2025.

UNLABELLED: This study predicts the burden of incident osteoporosis-related fractures and costs in the United States, by sex, age group, race/ethnicity, and fracture type, from 2005 to 2025. Total fractures were >2 million, costing nearly $17 billion in 2005. Men account for >25% of the burden. Rapid growth in the disease burden is projected among nonwhite populations. INTRODUCTION: The aging of the U.S. population will likely lead to greater prevalence of osteoporosis. Policy makers require precise projections of the disease burden by demographic subgroups and skeletal sites to effectively target osteoporosis intervention and treatment programs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A state transition Markov decision model was used to estimate total incident fractures and costs by age, sex, race/ethnicity, and skeletal site for the U.S. population 50 years of age for 2005-2025. RESULTS: More than 2 million incident fractures at a cost of $17 billion are predicted for 2005. Total costs including prevalent fractures are more than $19 billion. Men account for 29% of fractures and 25% of costs. Total incident fractures by skeletal site were vertebral (27%), wrist (19%), hip (14%), pelvic (7%), and other (33%). Total costs by fracture type were vertebral (6%), hip (72%), wrist (3%), pelvic (5%), and other (14%). By 2025, annual fractures and costs are projected to rise by almost 50%. The most rapid growth is estimated for people 65-74 years of age, with an increase>87%. An increase of nearly 175% is projected for Hispanic and other subpopulations. CONCLUSIONS: Osteoporosis prevention, treatment, and education efforts should address all skeletal sites, not just hip and vertebral, and appropriate attention is warranted for men and diverse race/ethnicity subgroups.

Cost of Illness↗