Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39515850›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2024

'This is PEEP' participatory qualitative study: learning from a provincial consultation and advisory group of people with lived and living experience of substance use in British Columbia, Canada.

Kerolos Daowd, Kurt Lock, Amirnima Danaei, Charlene Burmeister, Paul Choisil, Elizabeth Haywood, Iesha Henderson, Jessica Lamb, Jenny McDougall, Kali Sedgemore and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

11 authors.

Kerolos DaowdFaculty of Medicine, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Kurt LockHarm Reduction, BC Centre for Disease Control, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Amirnima DanaeiFaculty of Land and Food Systems, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Charlene BurmeisterHarm Reduction, BC Centre for Disease Control, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Paul ChoisilHarm Reduction, BC Centre for Disease Control, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Elizabeth HaywoodHarm Reduction, BC Centre for Disease Control, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Iesha HendersonHarm Reduction, BC Centre for Disease Control, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Jessica LambHarm Reduction, BC Centre for Disease Control, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Jenny McDougallHarm Reduction, BC Centre for Disease Control, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Kali SedgemoreHarm Reduction, BC Centre for Disease Control, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Jane A BuxtonHarm Reduction, BC Centre for Disease Control, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada jane.buxton@ubc.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2295-393X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo summarise PEEP's (Professionals for Ethical Engagement of Peers-a group of consultants with lived and living experience of substance use) outputs and gain insights into PEEP's impact and suggestions for the future.

designIncluded an environmental scan to collate PEEP activities and outputs and a participatory qualitative design using thematic analysis.

settingBritish Columbia, Canada.

participantsEight members of PEEP and nine staff/people who consulted PEEP were interviewed.

resultsPEEP members are co-authors/acknowledged for their input in 25 peer review publications and 16 reports; PEEP members co-presented or were co-authors on 33 presentations. PEEP meets by Zoom two times per week and is paid monthly via honorarium from the Provincial Health Service Authority at a current rate of $C30 per hour. Four themes emerged from our interviews: (1) What is PEEP? (PEEP provides a sense of community, holds systems accountable and inspires others), (2) PEEP Process (suggestions for improvement: consultants should be prepared and involve PEEP throughout the process and report how PEEP's insights were used), (3) PEEP Outcomes (PEEP members gain skills and confidence, PEEP provides a reality check, consultants learn from PEEP, and input leads to practice changes) and (4) Future of PEEP (sustainable funding and opportunities for growth are critical).

conclusionPEEP is a cohesive group whose input is well-respected and influences policy and programmes. Given the ongoing drug toxicity emergency, it is critical to continue to support and expand PEEP.

Indexed as

Qualitative ResearchSubstance-Related DisordersAdvisory CommitteesBritish ColumbiaHumansEpidemiologyHealth policyPeer groupPublic health

Identifiers

PMID39515850
PMCPMC11552597

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.