Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Toward structured peer support interventions in oncology: a qualitative insight into the experiences of gynaecological cancer survivors providing peer support

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Supportive Care in Cancer Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Research into dyadic (one-to-one) peer support has predominantly focused on the recipients of peer support whilst neglecting the impact on the peer support providers (PSPs). Increasingly, structured/protocolised peer support interventions are employed. The aim of this qualitative study was to explore the experience of providing peer support within a protocolised intervention and how common key characteristics of such interventions (guidelines and checklists, rigorous training and partnerships with health professionals) may influence PSPs’ experiences. This research was conducted within the context of an ongoing randomised controlled trial investigating a protocolised peer support intervention (the Peer and Nurse support Trial to Assist women in Gynaecological Oncology (PeNTAGOn) study).

Methods

Eleven women (gynaecological cancer survivors) providing peer support within the PeNTAGOn study participated in semi-structured telephone interviews. Transcribed interviews were analysed using interpretative phenomenological analysis.

Results

Five key themes were identified which described the overall experience of providing protocolised peer support: (i) fitting oneself to the protocolised PSP role, (ii) the impact of personal beliefs about the value of research, (iii) protocolisation as both blessing and curse, (iv) discussing taboo or sensitive topics and (v) the impact of interactions with study personnel.

Conclusions

These insights into the advantages and disadvantages of protocolised peer support can be used to inform future research and social support programs and maximise the effectiveness of such programs for patients, PSPs and the health-care system.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Dennis CL (2003) Peer support within a health care context: a concept analysis. Int J Nurs Stud 40(3):321–332

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Weber BA, Roberts BL, Yarandi H, Mills TL, Chumbler NR, Wajsman Z (2007) The impact of dyadic social support on self-efficacy and depression after radical prostatectomy. J Aging Health 19(4):630–645

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Lee R, Lee KS, Oh EG, Kim SH (2013) A randomized trial of dyadic peer support intervention for newly diagnosed breast cancer patients in Korea. Cancer Nurs 36(3):E15–E22. doi:10.1097/NCC.0b013e3182642d7c

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Pistrang N, Jay Z, Gessler S, Barker C (2012) Telephone peer support for women with gynaecological cancer: recipients’ perspectives. Psycho-Oncology 21(10):1082–1090

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Hoey LM, Ieropoli SC, White VM, Jefford M (2008) Systematic review of peer-support programs for people with cancer. Patient Educ Couns 70(3):315–337

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Macvean ML, White VM, Sanson-Fisher R (2008) One-to-one volunteer support programs for people with cancer: a review of the literature. Patient Educ Couns 70(1):10–24

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Giese-Davis J, Bliss-Isberg C, Carson K, Star P, Donaghy J, Cordova MJ, Stevens N, Wittenberg L, Batten C, Spiegel D (2006) The effect of peer counseling on quality of life following diagnosis of breast cancer: an observational study. Psycho-Oncology 15(11):1014–1022

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Wittenberg L, Yutsis M, Taylor S, Giese-Davis J, Bliss-Isberg C, Star P, Spiegel D (2010) Marital status predicts change in distress and well-being in women newly diagnosed with breast cancer and their peer counselors. Breast J 16(5):481–489. doi:10.1111/j.1524-4741.2010.00964.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Pistrang N, Jay Z, Gessler S, Barker C (2013) Telephone peer support for women with gynaecological cancer: benefits and challenges for supporters. Psycho-Oncology 22(4):886–894

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Chambers SK, Schover L, Halford K, Ferguson M, Gardiner R, Occhipinti S, Dunn J (2013) ProsCan for couples: a feasibility study for evaluating peer support within a controlled research design. Psycho-Oncology 22(2):475–479

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Chambers SK, Schover L, Halford K, Clutton S, Ferguson M, Gordon L, Gardiner RA, Occhipinti S, Dunn J (2008) ProsCan for couples: randomised controlled trial of a couples-based sexuality intervention for men with localised prostate cancer who receive radical prostatectomy. BMC Cancer 8(1):226

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Schofield P, Juraskova I, Bergin R, Gough K, Mileshkin L, Krishnasamy M, White K, Bernshaw D, Penberthy S, Aranda S (2013) A nurse- and peer-led support program to assist women in gynaecological oncology receiving curative radiotherapy, the PeNTAGOn study (Peer and Nurse support Trial to Assist women in Gynaecological Oncology): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. Trials 13 (39). doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-14-39

  13. Dunn J Efficacy of peer support interventions: summary of current knowledge. In: Clinical Oncology Society of Australia 29th Annual Scientific Meeting & International Psycho-oncology Society 14th World Congress, Brisbane, Australia, 2012.

  14. Gale NK, Heath G, Cameron E, Rashid S, Redwood S (2013) Using the framework method for the analysis of qualitative data in multi-disciplinary health research. BMC Med Res Methodol 13(1):117

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Pistrang N, Barker C (2012) Varieties of qualitative research: a pragmatic approach to selecting methods. In: Cooper H, Camic PM, Long DL, Panter AT, Rindskopf D, Sher KJ (eds) APA handbook of research methods in psychology, vol 2. American Psychological Association, Washington, D.C., pp. 5–18

  16. Braun V, Clarke V (2012) Thematic analysis. In: Cooper H, Camic PM, Long DL, Panter AT, Rindskopf D, Sher KJ (eds) APA handbook of research methods in psychology, vol 2: research designs: quantitative, qualitative, neuropsychological and biological, vol 2. American Psychological Association, Washington, D.C.

  17. Lovibond SH, Lovibond PF (1995) Manual for the depression anxiety stress scales, 2nd edn. Psychology Foundation, Sydney

    Google Scholar 

  18. Koelsch LE (2013) Reconceptualizing the member check interview. Int JQual Methods 12:168–179

    Google Scholar 

  19. NVivo Qualitative Analysis Software (2012). 10 edn. QSR International Pty Ltd.

  20. Haboubi N, Lincoln N (2003) Views of health professionals on discussing sexual issues with patients. Disabil Rehabil 25(6):291–296

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Gott M, Galena E, Hinchliff S, Elford H (2004) “Opening a can of worms”: GP and practice nurse barriers to talking about sexual health in primary care. Fam Pract 21(5):528–536

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Bourgeois-Law G, Lotocki R (1999) Sexuality and gynaecological cancer: a needs assessment. Can J Hum Sex 8(4):231–240

    Google Scholar 

  23. Juraskova I (2009) Quality of life/quality of sex: psycho-sexual adjustment following gynaecological cancer. VDM Verlag Dr. Müller, Saarbrücken

    Google Scholar 

  24. Winder PA, Hiltunen EF, Sethares KA, Butzlaff A (2004) Partnerships in mending hearts: nurse and peer intervention for recovering cardiac elders. J Cardiovasc Nurs 19(3):184–191

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. CCNSW Cancer Connect Peer Support. http://www.cancercouncil.com.au/26782/get-support/support-for-patients-family-friends/cancer-connect-peer-support/cancer-council-connect-ive-had-cancer-too/.

Download references

Acknowledgments

The current study was not directly funded by any grant. The PeNTAGOn study was funded by grants from Cancer Australia/Beyond Blue (Grant number: 566942) and the National Health and Medical Research Council (Grant Project number: GNT1005708). These funding bodies have had no role in the design of this study, nor in the collection, analysis and interpretation of data, or writing of this manuscript. PS currently holds a National Health and Medical Research Council Career Development Award, ID 628563.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Psychology, The University of Sydney, Brennan MacCallum Building (A18), Sydney, NSW, 2006, Australia

    Ben Huntingdon & Ilona Juraskova

  2. Department of Cancer Experiences Research, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia

    Penelope Schofield, Zahava Wolfowicz, Rebecca Bergin, Donna Kabel & Sylvia Penberthy

  3. Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia

    Penelope Schofield

  4. Department of Cancer Care Services, Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital, Brisbane, QLD, Australia

    Jennifer Edmunds

  5. Centre for Medical Psychology and Evidence-based Decision-making (CeMPED), The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia

    Ilona Juraskova

  6. Department of Psychology, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Health, Arts and Design, Swinburne University of Technology, Hawthorn, Australia

    Penelope Schofield

Authors
  1. Ben Huntingdon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Penelope Schofield
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Zahava Wolfowicz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Rebecca Bergin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Donna Kabel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Jennifer Edmunds
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Sylvia Penberthy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Ilona Juraskova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ilona Juraskova.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Huntingdon, B., Schofield, P., Wolfowicz, Z. et al. Toward structured peer support interventions in oncology: a qualitative insight into the experiences of gynaecological cancer survivors providing peer support. Support Care Cancer 24, 849–856 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-015-2853-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-015-2853-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation