Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40040617›Full record

ArticleJournal of advanced nursing2026

Tensions and Opportunities in Nurse, Midwife, and Peer Worker Collaborations in Healthcare Delivery: A Scoping Review and Narrative Synthesis.

Olivia Hollingdrake, Emma Paino, Sarah Warzywoda, Aaron Akpu Philip, Judith A Dean, Christopher Howard, Jo River

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of advanced nursing, 2026. 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

7 authors.

Olivia HollingdrakeSchool of Nursing, Faculty of Health, N Block, Kelvin Grove Campus, Queensland University of Technology, Kelvin Grove, Victoria, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1108-4567
Emma PainoSchool of Nursing, Faculty of Health, N Block, Kelvin Grove Campus, Queensland University of Technology, Kelvin Grove, Victoria, Australia.
Sarah WarzywodaSchool of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, Herston Campus, The University of Queensland, Herston, Australia.
Aaron Akpu PhilipSchool of Public Health & Social Work, Faculty of Health, O Block, Kelvin Grove Campus, Queensland University of Technology, Kelvin Grove, Victoria, Australia.
Judith A DeanSchool of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, Herston Campus, The University of Queensland, Herston, Australia.
Christopher HowardQueensland Council for LGBTI Health, Fortitude Valley, Queensland, Australia.
Jo RiverFaculty of Health, University of Technology Sydney, Ultimo, New South Wales, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimTo explore the published literature on nurse/midwife and peer worker collaborations in healthcare services.

designScoping review and narrative synthesis.

methodsThe framework proposed by Levac et al. was used. PubMed, CINAHL, MEDLINE, Scopus, and Embase databases were systematically searched, and results uploaded to Covidence for screening against inclusion criteria. A critical narrative synthesis of included studies was conducted, guided by Popay et al.

resultsSixteen studies from five countries met the inclusion criteria. They examined peer worker and nurse/midwife collaboration across diverse settings including cancer, HIV, mental health, and community services. Findings indicated that nurse/midwives and peer workers valued the distinct forms of expertise they contributed, which enhanced care. Tensions in collaboration related to clinical dominance and control in hierarchical structures, challenges navigating scope and role boundaries, and mistaken notions of what constitutes 'successful' peer work. Peer workers and nurses/midwives could be 'close strangers' with little opportunity to build genuine rapport.

conclusionSuccessful collaboration requires attention to power dynamics within healthcare cultures and opportunities to connect and understand each other's disciplinary expertise. Identifying strategies to optimise partnership and mobilise collective strengths has the potential to further enhance care. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION/PATIENT CARE: Peer worker or 'lived experience' roles within healthcare services have rapidly expanded. Our study highlights the benefits of peer worker and nurse/midwife collaborations and areas that require attention, including recognition of peer worker and nurse/midwife roles and responsibilities in the healthcare setting and effective integration of peer workers into existing healthcare teams. Importantly, strategies should be developed to address disparate power dynamics between nursing/midwifery staff and peer workers as these impact workforce relations and capability. Addressing these key areas will strengthen collaboration between nurses/midwives and peer workers, improve healthcare provision, and ultimately benefit service users. IMPACT: This study highlights the tensions arising when nurses/midwives and peer workers carry out duties alongside each other, as well as factors that can promote effective collaboration. Successful collaboration in healthcare necessitates addressing power differentials, fostering mutual understanding, and providing the tools, training, and inclusive environments needed for nurses/midwives and peer workers to work together effectively. REPORTING

methodThis scoping review adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) extension for scoping reviews. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Our authorship team includes experts with experience in peer work and supervision of peer workers, and designing and implementing peer-led interventions within health and community service settings.

Indexed as

Cooperative BehaviorDelivery of Health CareInterprofessional RelationsMidwiferyNurse MidwivesPeer GroupAdultFemaleHumansMaleMiddle Agedcollaborationinterdisciplinary care teamnarrative synthesisnursing practicepeer workscoping review

Identifiers

PMID40040617
PMCPMC12721950

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.