Jane Hughes1, Eleri Wood, Gaynor Smith. 1. Florence Nightingale School of Nursing and Midwifery, King's College London, London, UK. jane.hughes@kcl.ac.uk
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Peer support schemes of various types are commonly offered to patients as an adjunct to health and social care services provided by professionals. For patients with chronic illness, peer support interventions have recently become associated with more directive attempts to increase self management and improve healthcare outcomes. There is little qualitative research on patients' experiences of one-to-one peer support. PURPOSE: To explore kidney patients' experiences of receiving individual peer support. SETTING: Two large teaching hospital renal units in South London, with peer support services for patients on the pre-dialysis care pathway. METHODS: Qualitative telephone interviews with a purposive, maximum variation sample of 20 people who had received peer support. RESULTS: The majority of respondents were overwhelmingly positive about their experience of peer support and its benefits. They valued peer support because it had given them access to practical information about kidney disease, based on lived experience, which helped them reach decisions about treatment. Peer supporters offered patients empathy and understanding; confirmation that they were not alone in suffering; positive role models of coping with treatment for kidney disease; and hope for the future. Peer support helped patients adapt to chronic illness by normalizing adherence to demanding treatment regimes and increasing patients' sense of empowerment and agency. CONCLUSIONS: A brief meeting with a peer supporter delivered similar perceived benefits to those described by participants in support groups. Possible explanations for this include selection and training of peer supporters; careful matching of patients with peer supporters; and responsiveness to individual user-defined needs for information and psychosocial support.
BACKGROUND: Peer support schemes of various types are commonly offered to patients as an adjunct to health and social care services provided by professionals. For patients with chronic illness, peer support interventions have recently become associated with more directive attempts to increase self management and improve healthcare outcomes. There is little qualitative research on patients' experiences of one-to-one peer support. PURPOSE: To explore kidney patients' experiences of receiving individual peer support. SETTING: Two large teaching hospital renal units in South London, with peer support services for patients on the pre-dialysis care pathway. METHODS: Qualitative telephone interviews with a purposive, maximum variation sample of 20 people who had received peer support. RESULTS: The majority of respondents were overwhelmingly positive about their experience of peer support and its benefits. They valued peer support because it had given them access to practical information about kidney disease, based on lived experience, which helped them reach decisions about treatment. Peer supporters offered patients empathy and understanding; confirmation that they were not alone in suffering; positive role models of coping with treatment for kidney disease; and hope for the future. Peer support helped patients adapt to chronic illness by normalizing adherence to demanding treatment regimes and increasing patients' sense of empowerment and agency. CONCLUSIONS: A brief meeting with a peer supporter delivered similar perceived benefits to those described by participants in support groups. Possible explanations for this include selection and training of peer supporters; careful matching of patients with peer supporters; and responsiveness to individual user-defined needs for information and psychosocial support.
Authors: Jennifer L Peterson; Lance S Rintamaki; Dale E Brashers; Daena J Goldsmith; Judith L Neidig Journal: J Assoc Nurses AIDS Care Date: 2011-11-13 Impact factor: 1.354
Authors: Marika H F Burda; Frans van der Horst; Marjan van den Akker; Alexander D M Stork; Ilse Mesters; Silvia Bours; Maarten Ploeg; Bjorn Winkens; Johannes A Knottnerus Journal: Patient Date: 2012 Impact factor: 3.883
Authors: Adeline Dorough; Julia H Narendra; Caroline Wilkie; Akhil Hegde; Kawan Swain; Emily H Chang; Terence Oliver; Jennifer E Flythe Journal: Kidney360 Date: 2021-05-03
Authors: Hannah M L Young; Nicky Hudson; Amy L Clarke; Maurice Dungey; John Feehally; James O Burton; Alice C Smith Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-06-12 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Ann M O'Hare; Claire Richards; Jackie Szarka; Lynne V McFarland; Whitney Showalter; Elizabeth K Vig; Rebecca L Sudore; Susan T Crowley; Ranak Trivedi; Janelle S Taylor Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2018-07-06 Impact factor: 8.237