Marie Rose Phaneuf | PubMed Health

PubMed2004

Cancer peer support programs-do they work?

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.

Cost of Illness↗

PubMedDate not supplied

Best practice in group-based smoking cessation: results of a literature review applying effectiveness, plausibility, and practicality criteria.

OBJECTIVE: Apply a "best practices" model to evidence regarding group smoking cessation to inform organizational decisions about adopting such programs. The best-practices model attempts to integrate rigorous review of evidence with context and practical considerations important to organizations contemplating adoption. DATA SOURCES: First, we identified effective practices by systematic literature review with two blinded reviewers to (1) search databases (99.8% agreement), (2) hand search journals with five or more papers selected in first step (99.9% agreement), (3) search reference lists of included papers (99.4% agreement), and (4) contact published experts. Second, model programs, theory, and expert opinion suggested plausible practices. Finally, a practitioner-researcher advisory group suggested practical considerations affecting adoption decisions. STUDY SELECTION: All 67 studies included in the review met six requirements: (1) peer reviewed, (2) primary studies, (3) using experimental or quasi-experimental design, (4) compared one or more smoking-cessation interventions that involved two or more group sessions, (5) studied persons 18+ years old, and (6) reported > or =6-month point prevalence or continuous abstinence outcomes. DATA EXTRACTION: Two independent raters assessed study quality (89.5% agreement). Effective practices consistently exhibited a statistically significant effect. Plausible practices showed consistency across three types of evidence. An advisory group based practicality criteria on critical review and experience. DATA SYNTHESIS: Two practices were rated effective: multicomponent behavioral intervention and nicotine replacement therapy. Five practices received plausible ratings: components of behavioral skills, information about smoking, self-monitoring, social support, and four or more sessions of 60 to 90 minutes. The Advisory Group identified 11 practicality questions to assist organizations to make adoption decisions regarding effective and plausible practices. CONCLUSIONS: No research evidence guides potential smoking-cessation program adopters regarding program participants, providers, settings, or quality assurance. Reviews to influence practice must consider science and practice (context) to facilitate adoption of best practices.

Benchmarking↗