Cancer peer support programs-do they work?

H Sharon Campbell; Marie Rose Phaneuf; Karen Deane

doi:10.1016/j.pec.2003.10.001

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 Illness Data Collection Humans Needs Assessment Neoplasms Outcome Assessment, Health Care Peer Group Program Evaluation Quality of Life Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic Reproducibility of Results Research Design Self-Help Groups Social Support Journal Article Systematic Review

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

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

PubMed2005

Setting goals for health in a time of prosperity:.

Millennium development goals for the world's poorest nations need to be matched by health priority goals for prosperous nations, to relieve the burden of wealth-related disease.

Cost of Illness↗

PubMed2005

Cost-of-illness analysis. What room in health economics?

Cost-of-illness (COI) was the first economic evaluation technique used in the health field. The principal aim was to measure the economic burden of illness to society. Its usefulness as a decision-making tool has however been questioned since its inception. The main criticism came from welfare economists who rejected COIs because they were not grounded in welfare economics theory. Other attacks related to the use of the human capital approach (HCA) to evaluate morbidity and mortality costs since it was said that the HCA had nothing to do with the value people attach to their lives. Finally, objections were made that COI could not be of any help to decision makers and that other forms of economic evaluation (e.g. cost-effectiveness, cost-benefit analysis) would be much more useful to those taking decisions and ranking priorities. Conversely, it is here suggested that COI can be a good economic tool to inform decision makers if it is considered from another perspective. COI is a descriptive study that can provide information to support the political process as well as the management functions at different levels of the healthcare organisations. To do that, the design of the study must be innovative, capable of measuring the true cost to society; to estimate the main cost components and their incidence over total costs; to envisage the different subjects who bear the costs; to identify the actual clinical management of illness; and to explain cost variability. In order to reach these goals, COI need to be designed as observational bottom-up studies.

Cost of Illness↗

PubMed2005

What are the economic consequences for households of illness and of paying for health care in low- and middle-income country contexts?

This paper presents the findings of a critical review of studies carried out in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) focusing on the economic consequences for households of illness and health care use. These include household level impacts of direct costs (medical treatment and related financial costs), indirect costs (productive time losses resulting from illness) and subsequent household responses. It highlights that health care financing strategies that place considerable emphasis on out-of-pocket payments can impoverish households. There is growing evidence of households being pushed into poverty or forced into deeper poverty when faced with substantial medical expenses, particularly when combined with a loss of household income due to ill-health. Health sector reforms in LMICs since the late 1980s have particularly focused on promoting user fees for public sector health services and increasing the role of the private for-profit sector in health care provision. This has increasingly placed the burden of paying for health care on individuals experiencing poor health. This trend seems to continue even though some countries and international organisations are considering a shift away from their previous pro-user fee agenda. Research into alternative health care financing strategies and related mechanisms for coping with the direct and indirect costs of illness is urgently required to inform the development of appropriate social policies to improve access to essential health services and break the vicious cycle between illness and poverty.

Cost of Illness↗