Secondary analysis reveals peer support improves quality of life in breast cancer survivors, indicating barriers limit utilization.
Background Peer support (PS) programs offer care to women at-risk for and surviving breast cancer to improve their quality of life (QoL). Purpose This study evaluated a cancer-focused community-based organization’s (CBO) one-on-one and no-cost PS program to identify its uptake and outcomes. Methods A secondary analysis was conducted among N = 1054 breast cancer previvors and survivors who contacted the CBO for information and support: outcomes were assessed 30 days later. Associations among demographic/clinical factors and the offer, uptake, and outcomes of PS were analyzed. Results In this sample, N = 930 women (88.2%) were breast cancer survivors. PS was offered to N = 807 women (76.6%). Logistic regression demonstrated increased odds of being offered PS among those who were younger (odds ratio [OR] = 1.24), with lower household incomes (OR = 1.37), and who found the CBO more beneficial for themselves and their families (e.g. OR = 1.19). Of those offered PS, N = 304 (37.7%) utilized it. PS utilization was more likely among mothers (OR = 1.57), breast cancer previvors (OR = 1.59), and those with lower QoL (OR = 1.18). Women who utilized PS generally reported positive experiences (Mean = 44.4/50): younger age and positive experience were associated with better PS outcome (P’s ≤ 0.03). Among women who did not utilize PS, commonly reported challenges included time (17.5%) and discomfort sharing personal information (9.8%). Other barriers (63.9%) analyzed qualitatively referenced lack of need or interest, time constraints, and existing support networks. Conclusions PS programming was well-received among the one-third of women who participated, especially younger women and with those lower QoL. Barriers to utilizing PS could be addressed to enhance its reach and impact.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Statman et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: