ReviewPalliative medicine2026
Understanding workplace peer support among healthcare assistants providing palliative and end-of-life care at home: A realist review.
Review in Palliative medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHealthcare assistants delivering home-based palliative and end-of-life care face complex emotional and clinical demands with limited workplace support. Peer support had been suggested as a potential solution, yet no reviews of such interventions exist.
aimTo understand and explain how, why, for whom and in what contexts workplace peer support interventions for healthcare assistants work (or do not work) in palliative and end-of-life care delivery at home.
designRealist review registered with PROSPERO (registration number CRD42024606133). DATA SOURCES: CINAHL, MEDLINE, AMED, Scopus and grey literature with no date restrictions. Searches undertaken November-December 2024. All study designs containing data relevant to programme theory were included. Evidence was assessed for relevance, trustworthiness and rigour.
resultsSynthesis of 24 sources generated 12 context-intervention-mechanism-outcome configurations used to develop initial programme theory. Four workforce outcomes of intervention include: enhanced wellbeing and resilience, reduced loneliness and isolation, development of a sense of community of practice and strengthened role identity. Three intervention strategies: peer-facilitated group meetings, 24/7 peer support access, and informal peer mentorship, create psychologically safe spaces, where individuals feel validated, valued, connected with others, enabling social learning. The intervention elements align with the fulfilment of three basic psychological needs: competence, autonomy, and relatedness.
conclusionsThe initial programme theory reveals peer support may address core workforce challenges through psychologically safe peer connections and social learning, aligning with fulfilment of basic psychological needs. It provides a foundation for designing and testing evidence-informed peer support interventions for this workforce.
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.