Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35735452›Full record

ArticleCurrent oncology (Toronto, Ont.)2022

Web-Based Peer Navigation for Men with Prostate Cancer and Their Family Caregivers: A Pilot Feasibility Study.

Jacqueline L Bender, Parminder K Flora, Shimae Soheilipour, Mihaela Dirlea, Nandini Maharaj, Lisa Parvin, Andrew Matthew, Charles Catton, Leah Jamnicky, Philip Pollock and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Interactive digital tools to support empowerment of people with cancer: a systematic literature review.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024
    Pooled it
  4. Re-defining the future of cancer peer support: implementation, research, and policy considerations.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Toward a multi-level, needs-based approach to cancer navigation: Considerations for service design.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Prostate cancer peer navigation: an observational study on navigators' well-being, benefit finding, and program satisfaction.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2023
    Observational
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Jacqueline L BenderCancer Rehabilitation and Survivorship, Department of Supportive Care, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, ON M5G 2C4, Canada.
Parminder K FloraCancer Rehabilitation and Survivorship, Department of Supportive Care, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, ON M5G 2C4, Canada.
Shimae SoheilipourDivision of Health Services and Policy, School of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z3, Canada.
Mihaela DirleaCancer Rehabilitation and Survivorship, Department of Supportive Care, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, ON M5G 2C4, Canada.
Nandini MaharajDivision of Health Services and Policy, School of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z3, Canada.
Lisa ParvinDivision of Health Services and Policy, School of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z3, Canada.
Andrew MatthewDepartment of Surgery, Division of Urology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, ON M5G 2M9, Canada.
Charles CattonDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Division of Urology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, ON M5G 2M9, Canada.
Leah JamnickyDepartment of Surgery, Division of Urology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, ON M5G 2M9, Canada.
Philip PollockClinical Trials and Clinical Research, BC Cancer, Victoria, BC V8R 6V5, Canada.
Winkle KwanDepartment of Radiation Oncology, BC Cancer, Fraser Valley, BC V3V 1Z2, Canada.
Antonio FinelliDepartment of Surgery, Division of Urology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, ON M5G 2M9, Canada.
Arminée KazanjianDivision of Health Services and Policy, School of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z3, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-8702-1522
Princess Margaret Cancer Centre · CAUniversity of British Columbia · CAIsfahan University of Medical Sciences · IRUniversity of Toronto · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study assessed the feasibility, acceptability and potential effects of True North Peer Navigation (PN)—a web-based peer navigation program for men with prostate cancer (PC) and their family caregivers. A one-arm, pre-post pilot feasibility study was conducted at two cancer centres in Canada. Participants were matched through a web-app with a specially trained peer navigator who assessed needs and barriers to care, provided support and encouraged a proactive approach to health for 3 months. Descriptive statistics were calculated, along with paired t-tests. True North PN was feasible, with 57.9% (84/145) recruitment, 84.5% (71/84) pre-questionnaire, 77.5% (55/71) app registration, 92.7% (51/55) match and 66.7% (34/51) post-questionnaire completion rates. Mean satisfaction with Peer Navigators was 8.4/10 (SD 2.15), mean program satisfaction was 6.8/10 (SD 2.9) and mean app usability was 60/100 (SD 14.8). At 3 months, mean ± SE patient/caregiver activation had improved by 11.5 ± 3.4 points (p = 0.002), patient quality of life by 1.1 ± 0.2 points (p < 0.0001), informational support by 0.4 ± 0.17 points (p = 0.03), practical support by 0.5 ± 0.25 points (p = 0.04) and less need for support related to fear of recurrence among patients by 0.4 ± 19 points (p = 0.03). The True North web-based peer navigation program is highly feasible and acceptable among PC patients and caregivers, and the associated improvements in patient and caregiver activation are promising. A randomized controlled trial is warranted to determine effectiveness.

Indexed as

CaregiversPatient NavigationProstatic NeoplasmsCanadaFeasibility StudiesHumansInternetMalePeer GroupQuality of Lifedigital healthfamily caregiverspeer navigationprostate cancersupportive care

Identifiers

PMID35735452
PMCPMC9221974
OpenAlexW4282970283

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.