Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35212621›Full record

Trial reportHealth technology assessment (Winchester, England)2022

A peer-delivered intervention to reduce harm and improve the well-being of homeless people with problem substance use: the SHARPS feasibility mixed-methods study.

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

Open access · diamondAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Health technology assessment (Winchester, England), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
6.1field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

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

12 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Tessa ParkesSalvation Army Centre for Addiction Services and Research, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Stirling, Stirling, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0409-3254
Catriona MathesonSalvation Army Centre for Addiction Services and Research, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Stirling, Stirling, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7568-1125
Hannah CarverSalvation Army Centre for Addiction Services and Research, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Stirling, Stirling, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6846-2661
Rebecca FosterSalvation Army Centre for Addiction Services and Research, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Stirling, Stirling, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-8321-1801
John BuddFaculty of Medicine, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0988-782X
Dave LiddellThe Scottish Drugs Forum, Glasgow, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-3019-2894
Jason WallaceThe Scottish Drugs Forum, Glasgow, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3794-5118
Bernie PaulyThe Canadian Institute for Substance Use Research, University of Victoria, Greater Victoria, BC, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-4845-1383
Maria FotopoulouFaculty of Social Sciences, University of Stirling, Stirling, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5420-5632
Adam BurleyFaculty of Medicine, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0631-0558
Isobel AndersonFaculty of Social Sciences, University of Stirling, Stirling, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8601-8049
Graeme MacLennanThe Centre for Healthcare Randomised Trials (CHaRT), University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1039-5646
University of Stirling · GBUniversity of Edinburgh · GBUniversity of Aberdeen · 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 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. This study tested the feasibility and acceptability of a peer-delivered intervention, through 'Peer Navigators', to support people who are homeless with problem substance use to address a range of health and social issues.

objectivesThe study objectives were to design and implement 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, and to conduct a concurrent process evaluation to inform a future randomised controlled trial.

designA mixed-methods feasibility study with concurrent process evaluation was conducted, involving qualitative interviews [staff interviews (one time point),

settingThe intervention was delivered in three outreach services for people who are homeless in Scotland, and three Salvation Army hostels in England; there were two standard care settings: an outreach service in Scotland and a hostel in England.

participantsParticipants were people experiencing homelessness and problem substance use (

interventionThis was a peer-delivered, relational intervention drawing on principles of psychologically informed environments, with Peer Navigators providing practical and emotional support.

main outcome measuresOutcomes relating to participants' substance use, participants' physical and mental health needs, and the quality of Peer Navigator relationships were measured via a 'holistic health check', with six questionnaires completed at two time points: a specially created sociodemographic, health and housing status questionnaire; the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 items plus the Generalised Anxiety Disorder-7; the Maudsley Addiction Profile; the Substance Use Recovery Evaluator; the RAND Corporation Short Form survey-36 items; and the Consultation and Relational Empathy Measure.

resultsThe Supporting Harm Reduction through Peer Support (SHARPS) study was found to be acceptable to, and feasible for, intervention participants, staff and Peer Navigators. Among participants, there was reduced drug use and an increase in the number of prescriptions for opioid substitution therapy. There were reductions in risky injecting practice and risky sexual behaviour. Participants reported improvements to service engagement and felt more equipped to access services on their own. The lived experience of the Peer Navigators was highlighted as particularly helpful, enabling the development of trusting, authentic and meaningful relationships. The relationship with the Peer Navigator was measured as excellent at baseline and follow-up. Some challenges were experienced in relation to the 'fit' of the intervention within some settings and will inform future studies. LIMITATIONS: Some participants did not complete the outcome measures, or did not complete both sets, meaning that we do not have baseline and/or follow-up data for all. The standard care data sample sizes make comparison between settings limited.

conclusionsA randomised controlled trial is recommended to assess the effectiveness of the Peer Navigator intervention. FUTURE WORK: A definitive cluster randomised controlled trial should particularly consider setting selection, outcomes and quantitative data collection instruments.

trial registrationThis trial is registered as ISRCTN15900054.

fundingThis project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in

Indexed as

Ill-Housed PersonsSubstance-Related DisordersFeasibility StudiesHumansQuality of LifeSurveys and QuestionnairesFEASIBILITY STUDIESHARM REDUCTIONHOMELESS PERSONSMENTAL HEALTHOUTCOME ASSESSMENTSPATIENT HEALTH QUESTIONNAIREPEER GROUPQUALITY OF LIFESUBSTANCE-RELATED DISORDERS

Identifiers

PMID35212621
PMCPMC8899911
OpenAlexW4214521490

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.