Peer support interventions for breast cancer patients: a systematic review
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, ISSN: 1573-7217, Vol: 174, Issue: 2, Page: 325-341
2019
- 86Citations
- 201Captures
- 1Mentions
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations86
- Citation Indexes86
- 86
- CrossRef2
- Captures201
- Readers201
- 201
- Mentions1
- References1
- Wikipedia1
Review Description
Purpose: Due to the clear efficacy of peer support as a means of improving emotional well-being and healthy behaviors in a highly cost-effective manner, this program is widely used. Controversy remains, however, with regard to its efficacy in breast cancer patients. Given the heterogeneity of peer support interventions, this review aimed to categorize, assess, and synthesize the existing evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to clarify the effects of different types of peer support on breast cancer patients. Methods: We searched Pubmed, EMBase, CENTRAL, CINAHL, PsychINFO, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) and Wanfang Data for English and Chinese language RCTs. The Cochrane Collaboration ‘risk of bias’ tool for systematic reviews was used to assess the methodological quality of each RCT. Results: Of the 1494 studies screened, 15 studies met eligibility criteria for inclusion, comprising 1695 breast cancer patients. Overall, there were more positive effects than invalid or negative effects across peer interventions, with notable exceptions: unmoderated and unstructured group peer support interventions as well as Internet-based models without peer training had no effect or adverse effects on proximal and distal outcomes. However, adding other peer roles to the peer support structure or using one-on-one models could significantly improve the patients’ negative emotions. Peer education showed promising effects on stress management, quality of life, and healthy behaviors. Conclusions: This systematic review found that different types of peer support have different effects on outcomes for breast cancer patients. Web-based group peer support without peer training must be avoided or used with caution in the future. Peer education is recommended for breast cancer patient support models, given its excellent results and cost-effectiveness.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85059449805&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10549-018-5033-2; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30600413; http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10549-018-5033-2; https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10549-018-5033-2; https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10549-018-5033-2
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know