Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31164989›Full record

ArticlePilot and feasibility studies2019

Supporting Harm Reduction through Peer Support (SHARPS): testing the feasibility and acceptability of a peer-delivered, relational intervention for people with problem substance use who are homeless, to improve health outcomes, quality of life and social functioning and reduce harms: study protocol.

Tessa Parkes, Catriona Matheson, Hannah Carver, John Budd, Dave Liddell, Jason Wallace, Bernie Pauly, Maria Fotopoulou, Adam Burley, Isobel Anderson and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Pilot and feasibility studies, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
6.6field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.

Tessa Parkes1Salvation Army Centre for Addiction Services and Research, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Stirling, Colin Bell Building, Stirling, FK9 4LA UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0409-3254
Catriona Matheson1Salvation Army Centre for Addiction Services and Research, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Stirling, Colin Bell Building, Stirling, FK9 4LA UK.
Hannah Carver1Salvation Army Centre for Addiction Services and Research, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Stirling, Colin Bell Building, Stirling, FK9 4LA UK.
John BuddEdinburgh Access Practice, NHS Lothian, 22-24 Spittal Street, Edinburgh, EH3 9DU UK.
Dave LiddellScottish Drugs Forum, 91 Mitchell Street, Glasgow, G1 3LN UK.
Jason WallaceScottish Drugs Forum, 91 Mitchell Street, Glasgow, G1 3LN UK.
Bernie Pauly4Canadian Institute for Substance Use Research, Technology Enterprise Facility, University of Victoria, Room 273, Victoria, British Columbia V8P 5C2 Canada.
Maria Fotopoulou5Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Stirling, Colin Bell Building, Stirling, FK9 4LA UK.
Adam BurleyThe Access Point, 17/23 Leith Street, Edinburgh, EH1 3AT UK.
Isobel Anderson5Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Stirling, Colin Bell Building, Stirling, FK9 4LA UK.
Graeme MacLennan7The Centre for Healthcare Randomised Trials (CHaRT), University of Aberdeen, Health Sciences Building, Foresterhill, Aberdeen, AB25 2ZD UK.
Rebecca Foster1Salvation Army Centre for Addiction Services and Research, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Stirling, Colin Bell Building, Stirling, FK9 4LA UK.
University of Stirling · GBScottish Power (United Kingdom) · GBNHS Lothian · GBUniversity of Aberdeen · GBUniversity of Edinburgh · GBUniversity of Victoria · CA

Funding

Department of Health HTA/16/153/14
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWhile people who are homeless often experience poor mental and physical health and problem substance use, getting access to appropriate services can be challenging. The development of trusting relationships with non-judgemental staff can facilitate initial and sustained engagement with health and wider support services. Peer-delivered approaches seem to have particular promise, but there is limited evidence regarding peer interventions that are both acceptable to, and effective for, people who are homeless and using drugs and/or alcohol. In the proposed study, we will develop and test the use of a peer-to-peer relational intervention with people experiencing homelessness. Drawing on the concept of psychologically informed environments, it will focus on building trusting and supportive relationships and providing practical elements of support such as access to primary care, treatment and housing options.

methodsA mixed-method feasibility study with concurrent process evaluation will be conducted to explore the feasibility and acceptability of a peer-delivered, relational intervention for people with problem substance use who are homeless. Peer Navigators will be based in homelessness outreach and residential services in Scotland and England. Peer Navigators will work with a small number of participants for up to 12 months providing both practical and emotional support. The sample size for the intervention is 60. Those receiving the intervention must be currently homeless or at risk of homelessness, over the age of 18 years and self-report alcohol/drug problems. A holistic health check will be conducted in the first few months of the intervention and repeated towards the end. Health checks will be conducted by a researcher in the service where the Peer Navigator is based. Semi-structured qualitative interviews with intervention participants and staff in both intervention and standard care settings, and all Peer Navigators, will be conducted to explore their experiences with the intervention. Non-participant observation will be conducted in intervention and standard care sites to document similarities and differences between care pathways. DISCUSSION: The SHARPS study will provide evidence regarding whether a peer-delivered harm reduction intervention is feasible and acceptable to people experiencing homelessness and problem substance use in order to develop a definitive trial.

trial registrationSRCTN registry ISRCTN15900054, protocol version 1.3, March 12, 2018.

Indexed as

Feasibility trialHarm reductionHomelessnessInterventionPeer NavigatorsSubstance use

Identifiers

PMID31164989
PMCPMC6489271
OpenAlexW2947908329

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 OpenQuestion graph.