ArticleFrontiers in public health2023
Implementing a social innovation for community-based peer support for immigrant mothers in Sweden: a mixed-methods process evaluation.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: A South African social innovation based on peer support for mothers was contextualized in southern Sweden. The objective of the project was to support expectant women and mothers of young children in immigrant communities to access public services that would benefit maternal and child health. This study aimed to assess how the intervention was implemented, what the contextual barriers and facilitators were, and how the implementation was perceived by those who delivered and received it. Methods: The study used mixed methods with a convergent parallel design and followed the Medical Research Council guidance on process evaluations of complex interventions. Semi-structured interviews ( Results: The five peer supporters had 1,294 contacts with client mothers, of which 507 were first-time contacts. The reach was perceived as wide, and the dose of the intervention was tailored to individual needs. Barriers to implementation included community mistrust of social services, norms on gender roles and parenting, and funding challenges. The implementation was facilitated by the organization's reputation, network, experience, and third-sector affiliation. Peer supporters tended to prioritize linking clients to other services over the educational components of the intervention, sometimes doing more than what was originally planned. Implementation strategies used included building trust, using multiple outreach venues, using internal support structures, and providing practical assistance as an entry point to comprehensive psychosocial support. The personal connection between peer supporters and clients was highly valued, and the building of relationships enabled them to address sensitive topics. Peer supporters sometimes experienced a blurred line between professional and personal roles. Conclusions: Peer supporters used a variety of strategies to navigate identified barriers and facilitators. Trust was central both as a contextual factor and a strategy for implementation. It is valuable to maintain a balance between flexibility and adherence to the function of peer supporters. Further research is needed to evaluate the effects of the intervention.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.