A review of peer support in the context of cancer

Peer support interventions for people with cancer, their families, and friends have been widely used throughout the world. The present study reviewed the research literature on psychosocial oncology over the past decade to assess the prevalence and contribution of articles on peer support. Using CD-Rom databases, 25 articles were retrieved for review. In each article, patients or their family members were the target group for supportive interventions, which were primarily for the delivery of peer support and included either a qualitative or quantitative evaluation of the program. A definitional taxonomy for peer support interventions, which identified eight discrete settings, was derived from three key dimensions: style of supervision, interpersonal context, and mode of delivery. The studies suggested that peer support programs help by providing emotional and informational support from the perspective of shared personal experience. However, a paucity of research-particularly randomized controlled trials-was noted. The reasons may include inherent difficulties in isolating for study what is essentially a naturalistically occurring interpersonal dynamic from the complex social and community contexts from which it emanates. The authors discuss the gap between practice and theory in this area and recommend a broader and more inclusive view of supportive care for people with cancer. (C) 2003 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

Development of a quality use of medicines coding system to rate clinical pharmacists' medication review recommendations

Objective: To develop a 'quality use of medicines' coding system for the assessment of pharmacists' medication reviews and to apply it to an appropriate cohort. Method: A 'quality use of medicines' coding system was developed based on findings in the literature. These codes were then applied to 216 (111 intervention, 105 control) veterans' medication profiles by an independent clinical pharmacist who was supported by a clinical pharmacologist with the aim to assess the appropriateness of pharmacy interventions. The profiles were provided for veterans participating in a randomised, controlled trial in private hospitals evaluating the effect of medication review and discharge counselling. The reliability of the coding was tested by two independent clinical pharmacists in a random sample of 23 veterans from the study population. Main outcome measure: Interrater reliability was assessed by applying Cohen's kappa score on aggregated codes. Results: The coding system based on the literature consisted of 19 codes. The results from the three clinical pharmacists suggested that the original coding system had two major problems: (a) a lack of discrimination for certain recommendations e. g. adverse drug reactions, toxicity and mortality may be seen as variations in degree of a single effect and (b) certain codes e. g. essential therapy were in low prevalence. The interrater reliability for an aggregation of all codes into positive, negative and clinically non-significant codes ranged from 0.49-0.58 (good to fair). The interrater reliability increased to 0.72-0.79 (excellent) when all negative codes were excluded. Analysis of the sample of 216 profiles showed that the most prevalent recommendations from the clinical pharmacists were a positive impact in reducing adverse responses (31.9%), an improvement in good clinical pharmacy practice (25.5%) and a positive impact in reducing drug toxicity (11.1%). Most medications were assigned the clinically non-significant code (96.6%). In fact, the interventions led to a statistically significant difference in pharmacist recommendations in the categories; adverse response, toxicity and good clinical pharmacy practice measured by the quality use of medicine coding system. Conclusion: It was possible to use the quality use of medicine coding system to rate the quality and potential health impact of pharmacists' medication reviews, and the system did pick up differences between intervention and control patients. The interrater reliability for the summarised coding system was fair, but a larger sample of medication regimens is needed to assess the non-summarised quality use of medicines coding system.