Trial reportJournal of advanced nursing2025
Peer-Mentor Support for Older, Vulnerable Patients With Ischemic Heart Disease: A Mixed Methods Process-Outcome Evaluation.
Trial report in Journal of advanced nursing, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04945486 (The Effect of a Peer-mentor Intervention on Inequality in Cardiac Rehabilitation Attendance), which is not on this 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.
The Effect of a Peer-mentor Intervention on Inequality in Cardiac Rehabilitation Attendance: a Mixed Method Intervention Study Among Older Vulnerable Patients With Ischemic Heart Disease
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Expectations and Experiences of Peer Mentors in Supporting People With Osteoarthritis and Socioeconomic Disadvantage: A Multi-Method Exploration of Challenges and Lessons Learned.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimTo achieve a deeper understanding of the results of a primary randomised controlled trial to clarify the potential effective mechanisms and barriers of a peer-mentor intervention.
designMixed methods process-outcome evaluation of the intervention.
methodQualitative and quantitative data were collected during the intervention in a during-trial set-up, that is, a convergent design.
resultsThe qualitative and quantitative findings mostly confirmed and expanded each other, identifying several mechanisms that facilitate the effectiveness of peer-mentor support during cardiac rehabilitation, such as mentors' experience-based knowledge and motivation. However, barriers related to lifestyle changes among older, vulnerable patients (e.g., mentee concerns about heart-healthy diets) and psychological outcomes (e.g., mentees' resilience) may minimise the effectiveness.
conclusionPeer-mentoring holds potential for supporting older, vulnerable patients during cardiac rehabilitation. However, ensuring that peer-mentors are well-suited for their role and capable of providing motivational, experience-based support is crucial, as is the need for tailored mentorship and consideration of specific patient populations needing mentor-supported cardiac rehabilitation. IMPLICATIONS AND IMPACT: Cardiac rehabilitation faces challenges due to high drop-out rates, particularly among older individuals, females, and vulnerable patients. Peer mentoring, a low-cost intervention, holds promise for supporting these groups in cardiac rehabilitation programmes. REPORTING
methodThe study adheres to the 'Systematic Development of Standards for Mixed Methods Reporting in Rehabilitation Health Sciences Research', 'Good Reporting of A Mixed Methods Study' and 'Template for Intervention Description and Replication'. PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: A group of patients with cardiovascular disease actively contributed to developing and implementing the intervention. TRIAL AND PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04945486-prospectively registered before the first participant was recruited.
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.