BACKGROUND: Despite mounting evidence that peer coaches can make significant contributions to patient health, little is known about factors that must be addressed to engage and retain them in their role. OBJECTIVE: To identify motivators and barriers to serving as a peer coach. DESIGN: Open ended semi-structured interviews. PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: In a randomized trial of peer support, patients with well controlled hypertension and good interpersonal skills were recruited and trained to serve as peer coaches for African-American patients from the same practices who had poorly controlled hypertension. Peer coaches spoke by telephone at least three times with their same sex patient-clients on alternate months during the 6-month intervention and counseled about medication adherence as well as other healthy lifestyles. KEY RESULTS: Of 15 trained peer coaches, ten were contacted and agreed to participate in the qualitative interview. Peer coaches had a mean age of 66 years, 50% were women, and 80% were African-American. Themes regarding favorable aspects of the peer coach experience included: meaning and satisfaction derived from contributing to community health and the personal emotional and physical benefits derived from serving as a peer coach. Negative aspects centered on: challenges in establishing the initial telephone contact and wanting more information about their patient-clients' personal health conditions and status. Peer coaches endorsed gender matching but were less clear about race-matching. CONCLUSIONS: Programs that utilize peer support to enhance positive health behaviors should recognize that a spirit of volunteerism motivates many successful peer coaches. Program planners should acknowledge the special characteristics required of successful peer coaches when selecting, motivating and training individuals for this role.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Despite mounting evidence that peer coaches can make significant contributions to patient health, little is known about factors that must be addressed to engage and retain them in their role. OBJECTIVE: To identify motivators and barriers to serving as a peer coach. DESIGN: Open ended semi-structured interviews. PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: In a randomized trial of peer support, patients with well controlled hypertension and good interpersonal skills were recruited and trained to serve as peer coaches for African-American patients from the same practices who had poorly controlled hypertension. Peer coaches spoke by telephone at least three times with their same sex patient-clients on alternate months during the 6-month intervention and counseled about medication adherence as well as other healthy lifestyles. KEY RESULTS: Of 15 trained peer coaches, ten were contacted and agreed to participate in the qualitative interview. Peer coaches had a mean age of 66 years, 50% were women, and 80% were African-American. Themes regarding favorable aspects of the peer coach experience included: meaning and satisfaction derived from contributing to community health and the personal emotional and physical benefits derived from serving as a peer coach. Negative aspects centered on: challenges in establishing the initial telephone contact and wanting more information about their patient-clients' personal health conditions and status. Peer coaches endorsed gender matching but were less clear about race-matching. CONCLUSIONS: Programs that utilize peer support to enhance positive health behaviors should recognize that a spirit of volunteerism motivates many successful peer coaches. Program planners should acknowledge the special characteristics required of successful peer coaches when selecting, motivating and training individuals for this role.
Authors: Barbara J Turner; Mark Weiner; Sheila D Berry; Karen Lillie; Kevin Fosnocht; Christopher S Hollenbeak Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2007-11-21 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Michael L Steinberg; Allen Fremont; David C Khan; David Huang; Herschel Knapp; Deborah Karaman; Nell Forge; Keith Andre; Lisa M Chaiken; Oscar E Streeter Journal: Cancer Date: 2006-12-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Deanne K Hilfinger Messias; Linda Moneyham; Medha Vyavaharkar; Carolyn Murdaugh; Kenneth D Phillips Journal: Health Care Women Int Date: 2009-07
Authors: Sanja Percac-Lima; Richard W Grant; Alexander R Green; Jeffrey M Ashburner; Gloria Gamba; Sarah Oo; James M Richter; Steven J Atlas Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2009-02 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Jacqueline R Halladay; Kathleen Mottus; Kristin Reiter; C Madeline Mitchell; Katrina E Donahue; Wilson M Gabbard; Kimberly Gush Journal: J Am Board Fam Med Date: 2016 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 2.657
Authors: Andrea L Hartzler; Megan N Taylor; Albert Park; Troy Griffiths; Uba Backonja; David W McDonald; Sam Wahbeh; Cory Brown; Wanda Pratt Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2016-02-05 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Barbara J Turner; Christopher S Hollenbeak; Yuanyuan Liang; Kavita Pandit; Shelly Joseph; Mark G Weiner Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2012-05-09 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Shabatun J Islam; Jeong Hwan Kim; Matthew Topel; Chang Liu; Yi-An Ko; Mahasin S Mujahid; Mario Sims; Mohamed Mubasher; Kiran Ejaz; Jan Morgan-Billingslea; Kia Jones; Edmund K Waller; Dean Jones; Karan Uppal; Sandra B Dunbar; Priscilla Pemu; Viola Vaccarino; Charles D Searles; Peter Baltrus; Tené T Lewis; Arshed A Quyyumi; Herman Taylor Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2020-04-28 Impact factor: 5.501
Authors: Karen M Goldstein; Leah L Zullig; Eugene Z Oddone; Sara M Andrews; Mary E Grewe; Susanne Danus; Michele Heisler; Lori A Bastian; Corrine I Voils Journal: Prev Med Rep Date: 2018-04-24