Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33536033›Full record

ReviewHarm reduction journal2021

Peer driven or driven peers? A rapid review of peer involvement of people who use drugs in HIV and harm reduction services in low- and middle-income countries.

Judy Chang, Shaun Shelly, Machteld Busz, Claudia Stoicescu, Arif Rachman Iryawan, Dinara Madybaeva, Yuri de Boer, Andy Guise

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Harm reduction journal, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. COVID-19-Related Diminished Peer HIV Communication Intentions Among Sexual and Gender Expansive Individuals in Kazakhstan.Health education & behavior : the official publication of the Society for Public Health Education · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

8 authors.

Judy ChangInternational Network of People Who Use Drugs, INPUD Secretariat, Unit 2C09, South Bank Technopark, 90 London Road, London, SE1 6LN, UK. judychang@inpud.net.ORCID 0000-0002-4163-4048
Shaun ShellySouth African Network of People Who Use Drugs; University of Pretoria, Cape Town, South Africa.ORCID 0000-0002-8199-876X
Machteld BuszMainline, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Claudia StoicescuSchool of Social Work, Columbia University, New York, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-7150-6952
Arif Rachman IryawanRumah Cemara, Bandung, Indonesia.
Dinara MadybaevaAFEW Kyrgyzstan, Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan.
Yuri de BoerAFEW International, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Andy GuiseKing's College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0981-4663

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionPeer involvement of people who use drugs within HIV and harm reduction services is widely promoted yet under-utilised. Alongside political and financial barriers is a limited understanding of the roles, impacts, contexts and mechanisms for peer involvement, particularly in low- and middle-income settings. We conducted a rapid review of available literature on this topic.

methodsWithin a community-academic partnership, we used a rapid review approach, framed by realist theory. We used a network search strategy, focused on core journals and reference lists of related reviews. Twenty-nine studies were included. We developed thematic summaries framed by a realist approach of exploring interventions, their mechanisms, outcomes and how they are shaped by contexts.

resultsReported outcomes of peer involvement included reduced HIV incidence and prevalence; increased service access, acceptability and quality; changed risk behaviours; and reduced stigma and discrimination. Mechanisms via which these roles work were trust, personal commitment and empathy, using community knowledge and experience, as well as 'bridge' and 'role model' processes. Contexts of criminalisation, under-resourced health systems, and stigma and discrimination were found to shape these roles, their mechanisms and outcomes. Though contexts and mechanisms are little explored within the literature, we identified a common theme across contexts, mechanisms and outcomes. Peer outreach interventions work through trust, community knowledge and expertise, and 'bridge' mechanisms (M) to counter criminalisation and constraining clinic and service delivery environments (C), contributing towards changed drug-using behaviours, increased access, acceptability and quality of harm reduction services and decreased stigma and discrimination (O).

conclusionPeer involvement in HIV and harm reduction services in low- and middle-income settings is linked to positive health outcomes, shaped by contexts of criminalisation, stigma, and resource scarcity. However, peer involvement is under-theorised, particularly on how contexts shape mechanisms and ultimately outcomes. Efforts to study peer involvement need to develop theory and methods to evaluate the complex mechanisms and contexts that have influence. Finally, there is a need to expand the range of peer roles, to embrace the capacities and expertise of people who use drugs.

Indexed as

HIV InfectionsPharmaceutical PreparationsDeveloping CountriesHarm ReductionHumansPeer GroupPharmaceutical PreparationsCommunityCommunity involvementHarm reductionHIVPeerPeer involvementPeople who use drugsRapid review

Identifiers

PMID33536033
PMCPMC7857348

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.