A groundbreaking new study published in BMC Cancer explores the nuanced role of peer support in shaping self-efficacy among young adult cancer survivors (YA-CS). Despite widespread recognition of the need for psychosocial support in cancer care, particularly for young adults facing unique challenges, the “Peer2Me” intervention—a structured, one-on-one peer mentoring program—has revealed unexpected results in a comprehensive cohort study conducted in Germany. This research probes the depths of peer support efficacy, challenging assumptions and opening new avenues for understanding how social dynamics influence cancer survivorship.
Young adult cancer survivors often find themselves navigating a complex landscape where informational needs and emotional support are critically important but not always adequately met by traditional healthcare services. The Peer2Me program was designed to address these gaps by pairing recently diagnosed YA-CS with trained peer mentors sharing similar demographics and cancer experiences. The intuitive premise behind this approach hinges on the belief that shared experience fosters empowerment and enhances self-efficacy, which is vital for patients managing their health, treatment, and psychological well-being.
The trial was carefully structured as a bi-center comprehensive cohort study across two major German cities, Leipzig and Hamburg. It enrolled young adults aged 18 to 39 who were undergoing acute cancer treatment, recruited across various tumor entities diagnosed within six months prior. The study design incorporated participant preference in group allocation, allowing those who preferred peer mentoring to join the intervention group, while others received care as usual in the comparison group. This design choice aimed to reflect real-world conditions under which peer support might be sought or accepted.
Prior to mentorship, all peer mentors underwent rigorous training and preparation, ensuring tandems were matched meticulously based on diagnosis, age, and gender, fostering relatability and conducive rapport building. Participants completed validated questionnaires measuring self-efficacy at three key intervals: baseline (t1), immediately post-intervention after three months (t2), and a follow-up three months later (t3). The core instruments used were the Generalized Self-Efficacy Scale (GSES) and the Cancer Behaviour Inventory (CBI-B), both recognized measures in psycho-oncology research for assessing confidence in handling cancer-related challenges.
Out of 274 eligible participants, 106 completed the study, with 77 in the intervention group and 29 in the control group. Notably, about two-thirds of participants expressed a strong preference for receiving peer mentoring, indicating a high level of interest and perceived value in social support from similarly affected individuals. Initial analysis revealed that participants in the intervention group exhibited lower coping scores at baseline, suggesting they may have been in greater need of support compared to the control group.
However, the statistical evaluation painted a surprising picture. Mixed-design ANCOVAs controlling for baseline differences indicated no significant improvement in the self-efficacy scores of those receiving peer mentoring compared to usual care. Neither the changes between baseline and immediately post-intervention, nor baseline to three months post-intervention assessments yielded meaningful group differences on the GSES or CBI-B scales. These findings prompt critical reflection on the assumptions about peer support’s direct psychological impact.
This study’s outcome challenges the widely held notion that peer mentoring interventions inherently improve self-efficacy during acute treatment phases. It raises the possibility that, while peer support may fulfill important psychosocial needs such as emotional validation and informational exchange, these benefits do not necessarily translate into measurable enhancements in self-efficacy as captured by current instruments. The authors highlight that the complexity of young adult cancer survivorship requires multidimensional support strategies that may extend beyond one-to-one peer interaction within the short timeframe evaluated.
Moreover, the research underscores the complexity of coping mechanisms among YA-CS. The intervention group’s initial lower coping scores could indicate that those who self-selected for peer mentoring were already grappling with significant challenges, potentially requiring more intensive or varied forms of support to yield measurable change. This selection bias could have diluted detectable effects and points to the need for more targeted intervention strategies tailored to individual readiness and baseline psychological state.
The null findings do not diminish the perceived relevance of peer programs; rather, they highlight a gap in optimizing peer support to achieve specific psychosocial outcomes. Further research must explore factors such as intervention duration, mentor training depth, and the qualitative experiences of participants alongside quantitative measures. Understanding what elements of peer mentorship resonate and promote empowerment remains central to advancing cancer survivorship care models.
Additionally, the study sheds light on the importance of integrating peer programs within a broader continuum of supportive care services. Given that self-efficacy is influenced by multifactorial variables including clinical progress, personal resilience, and social context, peer interventions may need to be combined with professional psychosocial care, family involvement, and tailored educational resources to holistically support YA-CS.
In the context of acute cancer treatment, this study invites oncologists, psychologists, and support organizations to critically evaluate the structure and expectations of peer-led initiatives. It suggests a reimagination of how peer support is positioned—not necessarily as a standalone therapeutic lever but as part of an ecosystem of interventions that collectively address emotional, informational, and behavioral needs.
Finally, the Peer2Me study acknowledges recruitment challenges and attrition rates that are common in longitudinal psychosocial research with young adults. These factors highlight the difficulty in sustaining engagement and measuring dynamic psychological constructs over time, underscoring the need for innovative methodological approaches and adaptive trial designs tailored to this demographic.
In sum, the comprehensive evaluation of the Peer2Me program, while failing to demonstrate a significant improvement in self-efficacy among young adult cancer survivors, contributes an important empirical perspective to psycho-oncology. It reaffirms the value of peer support in theory while calling for nuanced, evidence-based refinement and integration within cancer care pathways to truly enhance outcomes for young adults facing the formidable challenges of cancer survival.
Subject of Research: Impact of peer support on self-efficacy in young adult cancer survivors.
Article Title: Peer2Me – impact of peer support on self-efficacy in young adult cancer survivors (YA-CS): findings from a comprehensive cohort design.
Article References: Brock, H., Dwinger, S., Friedrich, M. et al. Peer2Me – impact of peer support on self-efficacy in young adult cancer survivors (YA-CS): findings from a comprehensive cohort design. BMC Cancer 25, 943 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-025-14323-5
Image Credits: Scienmag.com
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-025-14323-5
Tags: cohort study on cancer supportemotional support for cancer patientsenhancing patient empowermenthealthcare gaps in cancer treatmentmentoring in cancer survivorshipnavigating cancer treatment as a young adultpeer support for young adult cancer survivorsPeer2Me intervention programpsychosocial support in oncologyself-efficacy in cancer careshared experiences in health managementyoung adult cancer challenges
