Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35120539›Full record

Trial reportHarm reduction journal2022

Assessing the feasibility, acceptability and accessibility of a peer-delivered intervention to reduce harm and improve the well-being of people who experience homelessness with problem substance use: the SHARPS study.

Tessa Parkes, Catriona Matheson, Hannah Carver, Rebecca Foster, John Budd, Dave Liddell, Jason Wallace, Bernie Pauly, Maria Fotopoulou, Adam Burley and 4 more

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Harm reduction journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
5.8field-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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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

14 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Tessa ParkesSalvation Army Centre for Addiction Services and Research, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Stirling, Stirling, UK. t.s.parkes@stir.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-0409-3254
Catriona MathesonSalvation Army Centre for Addiction Services and Research, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Stirling, Stirling, UK.
Hannah CarverSalvation Army Centre for Addiction Services and Research, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Stirling, Stirling, UK.
Rebecca FosterSalvation Army Centre for Addiction Services and Research, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Stirling, Stirling, UK.
John BuddFaculty of Medicine, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Dave LiddellScottish Drugs Forum, Glasgow, UK.
Jason WallaceScottish Drugs Forum, Glasgow, UK.
Bernie PaulyThe Canadian Institute for Substance Use Research, University of Victoria, Victoria, Canada.
Maria FotopoulouSalvation Army Centre for Addiction Services and Research, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Stirling, Stirling, UK.
Adam BurleyNHS Lothian, Edinburgh, UK.
Isobel AndersonFaculty of Social Sciences, University of Stirling, Stirling, UK.
Tracey PriceSalvation Army Centre for Addiction Services and Research, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Stirling, Stirling, UK.
Joe SchofieldSalvation Army Centre for Addiction Services and Research, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Stirling, Stirling, UK.
Graeme MacLennanThe Centre for Healthcare Randomised Trials (CHaRT), University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.
University of Stirling · GBNHS Lothian · GBUniversity of Aberdeen · GBUniversity of Edinburgh · GBUniversity of Victoria · CA

Funding

Chief Scientist Office HSRU1Department of Health
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFor people experiencing homelessness and problem substance use, access to appropriate services can be challenging. There is evidence that the development of trusting relationships with non-judgemental staff can facilitate service engagement. Peer-delivered approaches show particular promise, but the evidence base is still developing.

methodsThe study used mixed methods to assess the feasibility, acceptability and accessibility of a peer-delivered, relational intervention to reduce harms and improve health/well-being, quality of life and social functioning, for people experiencing homelessness and problem substance use. Four Peer Navigators were employed to support individuals (n = 68 total, intervention participants). They were based in outreach services and hostels in Scotland and England. Qualitative interviews were conducted with intervention participants, Peer Navigators and staff in services, and observations were conducted in all settings. Quantitative outcomes relating to participants' substance use, physical and mental health, and quality of the Peer Navigator relationship, were measured via a 'holistic health check' with six questionnaires completed at two time-points.

resultsThe intervention was found to be acceptable to, and feasible and accessible for, participants, Peer Navigators, and service staff. Participants reported improvements to service engagement, and feeling more equipped to access services independently. The lived experience of the Peer Navigators was highlighted as particularly helpful, enabling trusting, authentic, and meaningful relationships to be developed. Some challenges were experienced in relation to the 'fit' of the intervention within some settings. Among participants there were reductions in drug use and risky injecting practices. There were increases in the number of participants receiving opioid substitution therapy. Overall, the intervention was positively received, with collective recognition that the intervention was unique and highly valuable. While most of the measures chosen for the holistic health check were found to be suitable for this population, they should be streamlined to avoid duplication and participant burden.

conclusionsThe study established that a peer-delivered, relational harm reduction intervention is acceptable to, and feasible and accessible for, people experiencing homelessness and problem substance use. While the study was not outcomes-focused, participants did experience a range of positive outcomes. A full randomised controlled trial is now required to assess intervention effectiveness.

trial registrationStudy registered with ISRCTN: 15900054.

Indexed as

Ill-Housed PersonsSubstance-Related DisordersFeasibility StudiesHarm ReductionHumansQuality of LifeAlcoholDrugsFeasibilityHarm reductionHomelessnessInterventionMixed methodsPeer supportSubstance use

Identifiers

PMID35120539
PMCPMC8815224
OpenAlexW4210443482

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.