Patient-to-patient peer support in renal care: examining the role and attitudes of renal clinicians

Wood, Eleri

doi:10.12968/jorn.2014.6.6.293

Cited by 5 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…All five articles included mentioned at least one or more of both barriers and facilitators to PS uptake. Four articles assessed barriers and facilitators from a patient perspective (Hughes et al, 2009; Jeffries et al, 2015; McCarthy & Mastin, 2016; Taylor et al, 2016) and three assessed barriers and facilitators from healthcare staff perspectives (Hughes et al, 2009; McCarthy & Mastin, 2016; Wood, 2014). Only two (Hughes et al, 2009; McCarthy & Mastin, 2016) provided insight into both patient and provider perspectives together; however, Wood (2014) also commented on staff's perceived outcomes for PS recipients.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To provide opportunities for people with CKD to overcome such adversity, in the UK, peer support (PS) programmes are policy‐recommended (Department of Health, 2013), as they can help people with the same chronic condition to gain insight from one another through the sharing of experiences and information (Perry et al, 2005). Additionally, since the National Health Service (NHS) in the United Kingdom faces repeated budgetary and staff shortages, PS is a suitable and low‐cost supplement to standard clinical services on kidney units (Wood, 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Supporters who have lived experience of CKD are in an advantageous position to address questions and concerns of newly diagnosed patients in comparison with general healthcare professionals as they have a stronger sense of awareness and relatability (Heisler, 2006). Previous studies on peer mentoring between individuals with CKD have evidenced benefits such as providing a source of information for people and aiding PS recipients in feeling heard and understood given the supporters' authentic experience of the condition (Wood, 2014). It has also shown to improve self‐efficacy and emotional well‐being (Hughes et al, 2009), aid in treatment decisions (Hughes et al, 2009; Winterbottom et al, 2012) and relieve certain fears regarding specific procedures and therapies (Winterbottom et al, 2012).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Additionally, trust can be developed among recipients of PS and has shown to decrease health disparities, especially among disadvantaged groups (Perry et al, 2005). Despite claims in the past that peer supporters might provide erroneous information, this can be combatted by ensuring peer supporters are trained on a regular basis and advised against delivering any medical‐related advice (Wood, 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although PS is generally well‐received by PS recipients, there is low uptake for formal PS among patients with CKD in the United Kingdom (Hughes et al, 2009; Taylor, Gutteridge, & Willis, 2016; Wood, 2014). The problem is not unique to PS in kidney care.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

A narrative review of peer support barriers and facilitators in kidney care

Trasolini

Wood

Thomas

2020

Journal of Renal Care

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction Patients with chronic kidney disease often experience emotional/mental challenges and benefit from peer support, as it provides insight/information from others with the same condition. Previous studies show it is effective in improving health outcomes and aids in treatment decisions. Literature Review There is low peer support uptake among patients with chronic kidney disease in the United Kingdom and staff do not utilise peer support services fully. Few studies within the United Kingdom have focused on peer support barriers/facilitators, so this narrative review aimed to understand them from staff and patient perspectives. Materials and Methods A comprehensive search strategy and inclusion/exclusion criteria were applied with a two‐step process of article selection employed using two reviewers. Thematic analysis was applied. Results Five articles were included and six themes emerged. Low referrals and difficulty matching were staff barriers; concern regarding the relationship dynamic and the format/delivery were patient barriers. Promotion of the service aided the uptake from staff, while patients valued inclusivity. Discussion Increased promotion of peer support benefits through training/awareness may improve staff referrals and there should be greater exposure nationally. A flexible format is essential to ensure ample opportunity for access. Conclusion This review highlights the current literature on peer support barriers/facilitators. Further study is needed to evidence which approaches best overcome staff‐ and patient‐barriers.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

A narrative review of peer support barriers and facilitators in kidney care

Trasolini

Wood

Thomas

2020

Journal of Renal Care

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Self‐help friendliness in cancer care: A cross‐sectional study among self‐help group leaders in Germany

Ziegler

Nickel

Trojan

et al. 2022

Health Expectations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Peer support is increasingly recognized as crucial for improving health and psychosocial outcomes in oncological care. The integration of cancer self‐help groups (SHGs) into cancer care facilities has gained importance in recent years. Yet, there is a lack of knowledge of the extent and quality of cooperation between cancer care facilities and SHGs and their integration into routine care. The concept of self‐help friendliness (SHF) provides a feasible instrument for the measurement of cooperation and integration. Methods A cross‐sectional study across Germany investigates the experiences of 266 leaders of cancer SHGs concerning their cooperation with cancer care facilities based on the criteria for SHF. The participatory study was developed and conducted with representatives of the House of Cancer Self‐Help and the federal associations of cancer self‐help. Results According to the SHG leaders, about 80% of their members primarily find their way to an SHG via other patients and only less than 50% more or less frequently via hospitals or rehabilitation clinics. The quality of cooperation with cancer centres, hospitals and rehabilitation clinics, however, is rated as good to very good by more than 70% of the respondents. Nine out of 10 quality criteria for SHF are fully or at least partially implemented, the values vary between 53% and 87%. Overall, 58% of the SHG leaders feel well to be very well integrated into care facilities. Conclusions The results show a positive assessment of the involvement of SHGs in oncological care, but differences between inpatient and outpatient care and low referrals to SHGs are prominent. The concept of SHF is a feasible solution for a systematic and measurable involvement of SHGs. Patient or Public Contribution The perspectives and insight of patient representatives obtained through qualitative interviews were directly incorporated into this study. Representatives of cancer self‐help organizations were involved in the development of the questionnaire, reviewed it for content and comprehensibility, and further helped to recruit participants.

show abstract

Family doctors’ attitudes toward peer support programs for type 2 diabetes and/or coronary artery disease: an exploratory survey among German practitioners

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Type 2 diabetes (T2D) and coronary artery disease (CAD) are chronic illnesses where adherence to a healthy lifestyle is crucial. If organisational and cultural factors are well managed, Peer support programs (PSP) can improve self-management, quality of life, and health outcomes. In preparation for launching a PSP, we surveyed family doctors (FD) about their attitudes toward such a program and about potential barriers, and facilitators. Methods In March 2020 we surveyed 896 FDs from five university teaching practice networks in North-Rhine Westphalia, Germany, via an anonymous web-based survey. The questionnaire addressed details of PSPs, including suitable patients and FDs‘role. Data were analysed using descriptive and inferential statistics; qualitative material underwent content analysis by two researchers. Results A total of 165 FDs responded (response rate: 18.4%), 97% were practice owners. Respondents viewed PSPs positively (T2D: 92.0%, CAD 89.9%), especially for patients with poor self-structuring (82.7%), low motivation (76.3%) and few social contacts (67.6%). On average, FDs were able to identify 4.0 ± 3.2 patients as potential group leaders. Major facilitators reported included motivation by peers (92.5%), exercise (79.1%), and social contacts (70.1%). Waning interest over time (73.1%) and poor motivation (70.9%) were considered barriers. The majority of FDs would recommend PSPs to their patients (89.5%). They considered such a program a valuable addition to current care (79.7%). The percentage of FDs’ who expected long-term benefits for their workload was relatively low (37.6%). Conclusions In an exploratory survey among German FDs on PSPs, respondents viewed PSPs as a valuable add-on for T2D and CAD patients, while not expecting a positive impact on their workload. Communication with FDs on PSPs may need to highlight anticipated implementation outcomes such as benefits of PSPs to the practice.

show abstract

Patient-to-patient peer support in renal care: examining the role and attitudes of renal clinicians

Abstract: In her second article in this series on peer support for patients with chronic kidney disease, Eleri Wood explains why clinician engagement is important for successful peer support, and discusses an investigation of the attitudes and behaviours of clinicians at a large renal unit.

Cited by 5 publications

References 9 publications

A narrative review of peer support barriers and facilitators in kidney care

A narrative review of peer support barriers and facilitators in kidney care

Self‐help friendliness in cancer care: A cross‐sectional study among self‐help group leaders in Germany

Family doctors’ attitudes toward peer support programs for type 2 diabetes and/or coronary artery disease: an exploratory survey among German practitioners

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About