Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36096828›Full record

SynthesisSystematic reviews2022

Peer support for carers and patients with inflammatory bowel disease: a systematic review.

Ada Adriano, Dean M Thompson, Christel McMullan, Malcolm Price, David Moore, Lesley Booth, Jonathan Mathers

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Systematic reviews, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.7field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Ada AdrianoInstitute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Dean M ThompsonInstitute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9095-5593
Christel McMullanCentre for Patient Reported Outcomes Research, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Malcolm PriceInstitute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
David MooreInstitute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Lesley BoothBowel Research UK, London, UK.
Jonathan MathersInstitute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK. j.m.mathers@bham.ac.uk.
University of Birmingham · GBBowel and Cancer Research · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe support provided by people with the same condition, including inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD), has the potential to improve a range of psychosocial outcomes by allowing people with the disease to receive emotional support as well as to learn coping strategies from more experienced peers. The aim of this systematic review was to summarise the evidence on peer support interventions and their effectiveness on people with IBD.

methodsBibliographic databases, conference proceedings, grey literature, and clinical trial registers were searched from inception to November 2021. Comparative and single-arm studies that evaluated interventions that were solely or contained in part peer support, for people with IBD and/or their carers of any age and in any setting were included. Effectiveness was evaluated using outcomes relating to physical and psychosocial function, disease control and healthcare utilisation. Data for each outcome were tabulated and presented in a narrative synthesis. Study design specific tools were used to assess risk of bias. Study selection and risk of bias assessment were undertaken by two reviewers independently.

resultsFourteen completed studies and five ongoing studies met the inclusion criteria. Substantial heterogeneity was observed in the studies in relation to the intervention type and peer support was usually part of a wider intervention. All but one study analysed the total effect of the intervention, so it was not possible to fully isolate the effect of the peer support alone. The appropriateness of outcomes and outcome measurement tools for the assessment of effects was a further key issue. As such, overall, no significant evidence of beneficial effects of peer support interventions on quality of life and other psychosocial outcomes was found.

conclusionsNew randomised controlled trials designed to isolate the effects of peer support are needed to evaluate the (net) effects of peer support only. Agreement on the outcomes to be targeted, and the choice of reliable and validated measurement tools for standalone peer support interventions would provide a focus for further intervention design and evaluation. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: The protocol was accepted in the international prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO CRD42020168817).

Indexed as

CaregiversInflammatory Bowel DiseasesChronic DiseaseHumansQuality of LifeEffectivenessInflammatory bowel diseasePeer supportSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID36096828
PMCPMC9465919
OpenAlexW4295441160

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.