ArticleResearch square2024
A stakeholder-driven approach to designing a peer recovery coach role for implementation in community-oriented primary care teams in South Africa.
Article in Research square, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Introduction: In South Africa (SA), community-oriented primary care (COPC) teams work to re-engage out-of-care people with HIV (PWH) in treatment, many of whom have substance use (SU) concerns. SU stigma is high among these teams, limiting care engagement efforts. Integrating peer recovery coaches (PRCs) into COPC teams could shift SU stigma and improve patients' engagement in care. The PRC role does not exist in SA and represents a workforce innovation. To enhance acceptability, feasibility, and appropriateness for the local context, we engaged multiple stakeholder groups to co-design a PRC role for COPC team integration. Methods: We used a five-step human-centered design process: (i) semi-structured interviews with healthcare worker (HCW, Results: Although all stakeholders viewed the PRC role as acceptable, patients and HCWs identified different priorities. Patients prioritized the care experience through sharing of lived experience and confidential SU support. HCWs prioritized clarification of the PRC role, working conditions, and processes to limit any impact on the COPC team. A personal history of SU, minimum 1 year in SU recovery, and strong community knowledge were considered role prerequisites by all stakeholders. Through the iterative process, stakeholders clarified their preferences for PRC session structure, location, and content and expanded proposed components of PRC training to include therapeutic and professional work practice competencies. Service leaders endorsed the prototype after the addition of PRC integration training for COPCs and PRC mentoring to address community and COPC dynamics. Conclusion: Stakeholder engagement in an iterative HCD process has been integral to co-designing a PRC role that multiple stakeholder groups consider acceptable and that COPC teams are willing to implement. This offers a methodological framework for other teams designing SU workforce innovations.
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.