Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37335603›Full record

ArticleJMIR human factors2023

Introduction to the Coproduction of Supervision Standards for Digital Peer Support: Qualitative Study.

Caroline Collins-Pisano, Michael Johnson, George Mois, Jessica Brooks, Amanda Myers, Deanna Mazina, Marianne Storm, Maggie Wright, Nancy Berger, Ann Kasper and 6 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR human factors, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

16 authors.

Caroline Collins-Pisano *Department of Psychiatry, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5377-0311
Michael Johnson *The Commission on Accreditation of Rehabilitation Facilities International, Tucson, AZ, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1934-4850
George Mois *College of Applied Health Sciences, University of Illinois, Champaign, IL, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5414-6097
Jessica Brooks *Department of Psychiatry, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0830-3527
Amanda Myers *The Heller School for Social Policy and Management, Brandeis University, Waltham, MA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8760-0938
Deanna Mazina *Watertown Health Department, Watertown, MA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3082-8629
Marianne Storm *Faculty of Health Sciences and Social Care, Molde University College, Molde, Norway.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1139-5947
Maggie Wright *Families in Trauma and Recovery, Fife, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2533-7569
Nancy Berger *Roxbury Community College, Boston, MA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2408-7369
Ann Kasper *Kasper Connects, Portland, OR, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7882-9423
Anthony Fox *Tennessee Mental Health Consumer's Association, Nashville, TN, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9404-9021
Sandi MacDonald *International Association of Pre-Menstrual Disorders, Boston, MA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2938-4875
Sarah Schultze *School of Social Work, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2266-9691
Andrew Bohm *The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Geisel School of Medicine, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4782-8430
Julia HillDartmouth College, Hanover, NH, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5062-1839
Karen Fortuna *Department of Psychiatry, Geisel School of Medicine, Dartmouth College, Concord, NH, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0343-2346

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDigital peer support enhances engagement in mental and physical health services despite barriers such as location, transportation, and other accessibility constraints. Digital peer support involves live or automated peer support services delivered through technology media such as peer-to-peer networks, smartphone apps, and asynchronous and synchronous technologies. Supervision standards for digital peer support can determine important administrative, educative, and supportive guidelines for supervisors to maintain the practice of competent digital peer support, develop knowledgeable and skilled digital peer support specialists, clarify the role and responsibility of digital peer support specialists, and support specialists in both an emotional and developmental capacity.

objectiveAlthough digital peer support has expanded recently, there are no formal digital supervision standards. The aim of this study is to inform the development of supervision standards for digital peer support and introduce guidelines that supervisors can use to support, guide, and develop competencies in digital peer support specialists.

methodsPeer support specialists that currently offer digital peer support services were recruited via an international email listserv of 1500 peer support specialists. Four 1-hour focus groups, with a total of 59 participants, took place in October 2020. Researchers used Rapid and Rigorous Qualitative Data Analysis methods. Researchers presented data transcripts to focus group participants for feedback and to determine if the researcher's interpretation of the data match their intended meanings.

resultsWe identified 51 codes and 11 themes related to the development of supervision standards for digital peer support. Themes included (1) education on technology competency (43/197, 21.8%), (2) education on privacy, security, and confidentiality in digital devices and platforms (33/197, 16.8%), (3) education on peer support competencies and how they relate to digital peer support (25/197, 12.7%), (4) administrative guidelines (21/197, 10.7%), (5) education on the digital delivery of peer support (18/197, 9.1%), (6) education on technology access (17/197, 8.6%), (7) supervisor support of work-life balance (17/197, 8.6%), (8) emotional support (9/197, 4.6%), (9) administrative documentation (6/197, 3%), (10) education on suicide and crisis intervention (5/197, 2.5%), and (11) feedback (3/197, 1.5%).

conclusionsCurrently, supervision standards from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) for in-person peer support include administrative, educative, and supportive functions. However, digital peer support has necessitated supervision standard subthemes such as education on technology and privacy, support of work-life balance, and emotional support. Lack of digital supervision standards may lead to a breach in ethics and confidentiality, workforce stress, loss of productivity, loss of boundaries, and ineffectively serving users who participate in digital peer support services. Digital peer support specialists require specific knowledge and skills to communicate with service users and deliver peer support effectively, while supervisors require new knowledge and skills to effectively develop, support, and manage the digital peer support role.

Indexed as

competenciescompetencycontinuing educationdigital peer supportfocus groupguidelinehealth care educationmHealthpeer supportprofessional developmentprofessional educationqualitative data analysisstandardssupervision

Identifiers

PMID37335603
PMCPMC10337386

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.