Can community-based peer support promote health literacy and reduce inequalities? A realist review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Community-based peer support (CBPS) has been proposed as a potentially promising approach to improve health literacy (HL) and reduce health inequalities. Peer support, however, is described as a public health intervention in search of a theory, and as yet there are no systematic reviews exploring why or how peer support works to improve HL. Objective To undertake a participatory realist synthesis to develop a better understanding of the potential for CBPS to promote better HL and reduce health inequalities. Data sources Qualitative evidence syntheses, conceptual reviews and primary studies evaluating peer-support programmes; related studies that informed theoretical or contextual elements of the studies of interest were included. We conducted searches covering 1975 to October 2011 across Scopus, Global Health (including MEDLINE), ProQuest Dissertations & Theses database (PQDT) [including the Education Resources Information Center (ERIC) and Social Work Abstracts], The King’s Fund Database and Web of Knowledge, and the Institute of Development Studies supplementary strategies were used for the identification of grey literature. We developed a new approach to searching called ‘cluster searching’, which uses a variety of search techniques to identify papers or other research outputs that relate to a single study. Study eligibility criteria Studies written in English describing CBPS research/evaluation, and related papers describing theory, were included. Study appraisal and synthesis methods Studies were selected on the basis of relevance in the first instance. We first analysed within-programme articulation of theory and appraised for coherence. Cross-programme analysis was used to configure relationships among context, mechanisms and outcomes. Patterns were then identified and compared with theories relevant to HL and health inequalities to produce a middle-range theory. Results The synthesis indicated that organisations, researchers and health professionals that adopt an authoritarian design for peer-support programmes risk limiting the ability of peer supporters (PSs) to exercise autonomy and use their experiential knowledge to deliver culturally tailored support. Conversely, when organisations take a negotiated approach to codesigning programmes, PSs are enabled to establish meaningful relationships with people in socially vulnerable groups. CBPS is facilitated when organisations prioritise the importance of assessing community needs; investigate root causes of poor health and well-being; allow adequate time for development of relationships and connections; value experiential cultural knowledge; and share power and control during all stages of design and implementation. The theory now needs to be empirically tested via further primary research. Limitations Analysis and synthesis were challenged by a lack of explicit links between peer support for marginalised groups and health inequalities; explicitly stated programme theory; inconsistent reporting of context and mechanism; poor reporting of intermediate process outcomes; and the use of theories aimed at individual-level behaviour change for community-based interventions. Conclusions Peer-support programmes have the potential to improve HL and reduce health inequalities but potential is dependent upon the surrounding equity context. More explicit empirical research is needed, which establishes clearer links between peer-supported HL and health inequalities. Study registration This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42012002297. Funding The National Institute for Health Research Public Health Research programme.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.051 | 0.210 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".