ArticleJournal of viral hepatitis2026
Peer Interventions for Hepatitis C Testing and Treatment in OECD Countries: A Systematic Scoping Review.
Article in Journal of viral hepatitis, 2026. 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.
- Peer Interventions for Hepatitis C Testing and Treatment in OECD Countries: A Systematic Scoping Review.Journal of viral hepatitis · 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Services delivered by peer workers (people with lived/living experience) are recommended to find, test, and treat those at risk of hepatitis C (HCV). However, there is a lack of knowledge around the characteristics and underlying mechanisms of existing HCV peer interventions and how these drive effectiveness and impact. This systematic scoping review aimed to identify the activities of peer interventions, their reported outcomes, and mechanisms of change. We systematically searched five databases (Scopus, PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO and Web of Science) for peer-reviewed papers which described HCV peer interventions in OECD countries published between 2012 and 2022, informed and structured by the PRISMA extension for scoping reviews and scoping review reporting guidance. All identified studies were double screened at title and abstract and full text stage. Twenty-nine studies met our inclusion criteria. In 23 studies, peer workers delivered interventions, mostly focused on outcomes for intervention recipients. Peer workers improved HCV care linkage, testing, treatment and SVR12 rates. Peer workers themselves reported increased confidence, job satisfaction, improved mental wellbeing, employability and social integration into communities. Key activities and peer intervention elements were occasionally documented, but more often omitted. None of the included studies explicitly documented or theorised underlying mechanisms, that is, how or why peer interventions work. The lack of details and mechanistic descriptions of peer interventions negatively impact the ability to optimise and enhance peer-led HCV care. This potentially undermines the elimination of HCV at population level.
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.