Ben Huntingdon1, Penelope Schofield2,3,4, Zahava Wolfowicz2, Rebecca Bergin2, Donna Kabel2, Jennifer Edmunds5, Sylvia Penberthy2, Ilona Juraskova6,7. 1. School of Psychology, The University of Sydney, Brennan MacCallum Building (A18), Sydney, NSW, 2006, Australia. 2. Department of Cancer Experiences Research, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. 3. Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. 4. Department of Psychology, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Health, Arts and Design, Swinburne University of Technology, Hawthorn, Australia. 5. Department of Cancer Care Services, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Brisbane, QLD, Australia. 6. School of Psychology, The University of Sydney, Brennan MacCallum Building (A18), Sydney, NSW, 2006, Australia. ilona.juraskova@sydney.edu.au. 7. Centre for Medical Psychology and Evidence-based Decision-making (CeMPED), The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. ilona.juraskova@sydney.edu.au.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Research into dyadic (one-to-one) peer support has predominantly focused on the recipients of peer support whilst neglecting the impact on the peer support providers (PSPs). Increasingly, structured/protocolised peer support interventions are employed. The aim of this qualitative study was to explore the experience of providing peer support within a protocolised intervention and how common key characteristics of such interventions (guidelines and checklists, rigorous training and partnerships with health professionals) may influence PSPs' experiences. This research was conducted within the context of an ongoing randomised controlled trial investigating a protocolised peer support intervention (the Peer and Nurse support Trial to Assist women in Gynaecological Oncology (PeNTAGOn) study). METHODS: Eleven women (gynaecological cancer survivors) providing peer support within the PeNTAGOn study participated in semi-structured telephone interviews. Transcribed interviews were analysed using interpretative phenomenological analysis. RESULTS: Five key themes were identified which described the overall experience of providing protocolised peer support: (i) fitting oneself to the protocolised PSP role, (ii) the impact of personal beliefs about the value of research, (iii) protocolisation as both blessing and curse, (iv) discussing taboo or sensitive topics and (v) the impact of interactions with study personnel. CONCLUSIONS: These insights into the advantages and disadvantages of protocolised peer support can be used to inform future research and social support programs and maximise the effectiveness of such programs for patients, PSPs and the health-care system.
PURPOSE: Research into dyadic (one-to-one) peer support has predominantly focused on the recipients of peer support whilst neglecting the impact on the peer support providers (PSPs). Increasingly, structured/protocolised peer support interventions are employed. The aim of this qualitative study was to explore the experience of providing peer support within a protocolised intervention and how common key characteristics of such interventions (guidelines and checklists, rigorous training and partnerships with health professionals) may influence PSPs' experiences. This research was conducted within the context of an ongoing randomised controlled trial investigating a protocolised peer support intervention (the Peer and Nurse support Trial to Assist women in Gynaecological Oncology (PeNTAGOn) study). METHODS: Eleven women (gynaecological cancer survivors) providing peer support within the PeNTAGOn study participated in semi-structured telephone interviews. Transcribed interviews were analysed using interpretative phenomenological analysis. RESULTS: Five key themes were identified which described the overall experience of providing protocolised peer support: (i) fitting oneself to the protocolised PSP role, (ii) the impact of personal beliefs about the value of research, (iii) protocolisation as both blessing and curse, (iv) discussing taboo or sensitive topics and (v) the impact of interactions with study personnel. CONCLUSIONS: These insights into the advantages and disadvantages of protocolised peer support can be used to inform future research and social support programs and maximise the effectiveness of such programs for patients, PSPs and the health-care system.
Entities:
Keywords:
Cancer; Interventions; Oncology; Peer support providers; Qualitative research
Authors: Patricia A Winder; Elizabeth F Hiltunen; Kristen A Sethares; Alice Butzlaff Journal: J Cardiovasc Nurs Date: 2004 May-Jun Impact factor: 2.083
Authors: Sarah D Kowitt; Katrina R Ellis; Veronica Carlisle; Nivedita L Bhushan; Kristin Z Black; Kaitlyn Brodar; Nicole M Cranley; Kia L Davis; Eugenia Eng; Michelle Y Martin; Jared McGuirt; Rebeccah L Sokol; Patrick Y Tang; Anissa I Vines; Jennifer S Walker; Edwin B Fisher Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2018-10-06 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: M P Pomey; M de Guise; M Desforges; K Bouchard; C Vialaron; L Normandin; M Iliescu-Nelea; I Fortin; I Ganache; C Régis; Z Rosberger; D Charpentier; L Bélanger; M Dorval; D P Ghadiri; M Lavoie-Tremblay; A Boivin; J F Pelletier; N Fernandez; A M Danino Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2021-01-04 Impact factor: 2.655