Trial reportBMJ open2024
PEER CONNECT: a pragmatic feasibility randomised controlled trial of peer coaching for adults with long-term conditions.
Trial report in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo test the feasibility of a targeted peer coaching intervention on the health and well-being of people with long-term health conditions and low activation attending outpatient clinics at a UK National Health Service (NHS) Trust.
designRandomised controlled feasibility trial, with embedded qualitative study.
settingAn NHS integrated health and care organisation in the South West of England, UK, with significant areas of deprivation.
participantsPatients (over 18 year of age) of the Trust's rheumatology, pain or multiple sclerosis services, with a Patient Activation Measure score at level 1 or 2.
interventionUp to 14 sessions of peer coaching delivered in a stepped-down model delivered over 6 months. MAIN OUTCOMES: Primary feasibility outcomes were recruitment, retention, intervention adherence and peer, coach and staff experience.Secondary outcomes included psychological well-being, resource use, long-term condition management and disease-specific measures.
results97 potential coaches were contacted directly. 27 (27.8%) were screened and of those 21 (77.8%) were eligible and recruited into the study. For a range of reasons, only five (23.8%) progressed through training and on to deliver peer coaching. 747 potential peers were invited to take part and 19 (2.5%) were screened. Of those screened, seven (36.8%) were eligible, recruited and randomised, all white females with median age of 50 years (range: 24-82 years). One peer in the intervention group withdrew prior to receiving the intervention, the remaining four received coaching. Peers and coaches reported a range of benefits related to their health and well-being.
conclusionCoach recruitment, training and study procedures were feasible and acceptable. Due to low peer recruitment numbers, it was decided not to progress to a definitive trial. Further research is required to explore how to engage with and recruit people reporting low levels of activation and the acceptability and effectiveness of peer coaching for this group. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN12623577.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.