Exploring the experiences and perceptions of participating in a peer-support intervention for adults with chronic non-cancer pain: a qualitative systematic review

Author:

Arnott Rachel1ORCID,Park Victoria1ORCID,Rhind Nicola2,Cooper Kay13ORCID

Affiliation:

1. School of Health Sciences, Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen, UK

2. Grampian Pain Management Service, Scotland, UK

3. The Scottish Centre for Evidence-based, Multi-professional Practice: A JBI Centre of Excellence, Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen, UK

Abstract

Objective: This review explored the experiences and perceptions of adults with chronic non-cancer pain who participated in peer-support interventions. This included adults’ perceptions of intervention components, strengths and limitations of interventions, and barriers and facilitators for their implementation. Introduction: Chronic pain, defined as pain that persists beyond 12 weeks or past normal tissue healing time, is a prevalent and costly issue. Peer-support interventions could play a pivotal role in the management of chronic pain. Studies have been conducted examining the perspectives of people with chronic pain on peer-support interventions; however, a systematic review had yet to be conducted to synthesize this evidence. Inclusion criteria: This review included qualitative studies of any design that explored the experiences of adults (defined by the study’s country of origin) with chronic pain during and after participation in a peer-support intervention. Methods: The methods for this review followed JBI methodological guidance for systematic reviews of qualitative evidence. AMED, CINAHL, MEDLINE, PsycArticles, and SPORTDiscus (all via EBSCOhost); Embase and PsycINFO (both via Ovid); and Web of Science databases were searched for published studies. EBSCO Open Dissertations, EThOS (British Library), the Networked Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations (Global ETD), and Google Scholar were searched for gray literature. Databases were searched from inception to April 2020, and all languages were considered for inclusion. All studies identified by the search were examined against the inclusion criteria. Papers selected for inclusion were assessed by 2 independent reviewers for methodological quality prior to inclusion in the review. Qualitative research findings were extracted and pooled. Findings were assembled and categorized based on similarity in meaning. These categories were then subjected to a meta-synthesis in order to produce a single comprehensive set of synthesized findings. Results: Seven studies with a total of 214 participants were included in the review. Most of the studies (5/7) were of moderate to high quality, following critical appraisal. From these studies, 53 findings were extracted and grouped into 14 categories. Four synthesized findings were compiled by aggregating the categories. Broadly, these synthesized findings related to the unique relationships formed between peers, benefits for both parties, essential intervention components, and barriers to implementation. Conclusions: This was the first systematic review to summarize the experience of participating in a peer-support intervention for adults with chronic non-cancer pain. The synthesized findings from this review can be used by organizations to develop and implement peer-support interventions for adults with chronic non-cancer pain. Another main finding is the lack of research in this area, as only 7 studies were included after a comprehensive search. Furthermore, no evidence was found in the areas of intervention format, length of intervention, or frequency of contact between peer-support volunteers and participants. As such, these areas require further research. The generalizability of the included studies is also limited, as the studies represented only 4 countries (Canada, China, the United Kingdom, and the United States). The results, therefore, present the experiences of people from high-income settings and may not be contextualized to low- and middle-income countries; this warrants further research to be conducted in the latter countries. Review registration: PROSPERO CRD42021245085

Publisher

Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)

Subject

General Nursing

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3