A peer-delivered intervention to reduce harm and improve the well-being of homeless people with problem substance use: the SHARPS feasibility mixed-methods study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: For people experiencing homelessness and problem substance use, access to appropriate services can be challenging. There is evidence that development of trusting relationships with non-judgemental staff can facilitate service engagement. Peer-delivered approaches show particular promise, but the evidence base is still developing. This study tested the feasibility and acceptability of a peer-delivered intervention, through 'Peer Navigators', to support people who are homeless with problem substance use to address a range of health and social issues. OBJECTIVES: The study objectives were to design and implement a peer-delivered, relational intervention to reduce harms and improve health/well-being, quality of life and social functioning for people experiencing homelessness and problem substance use, and to conduct a concurrent process evaluation to inform a future randomised controlled trial. DESIGN: = 10], observations and quantitative outcome measures. SETTING: The intervention was delivered in three outreach services for people who are homeless in Scotland, and three Salvation Army hostels in England; there were two standard care settings: an outreach service in Scotland and a hostel in England. PARTICIPANTS: = 68) (intervention). INTERVENTION: This was a peer-delivered, relational intervention drawing on principles of psychologically informed environments, with Peer Navigators providing practical and emotional support. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcomes relating to participants' substance use, participants' physical and mental health needs, and the quality of Peer Navigator relationships were measured via a 'holistic health check', with six questionnaires completed at two time points: a specially created sociodemographic, health and housing status questionnaire; the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 items plus the Generalised Anxiety Disorder-7; the Maudsley Addiction Profile; the Substance Use Recovery Evaluator; the RAND Corporation Short Form survey-36 items; and the Consultation and Relational Empathy Measure. RESULTS: The Supporting Harm Reduction through Peer Support (SHARPS) study was found to be acceptable to, and feasible for, intervention participants, staff and Peer Navigators. Among participants, there was reduced drug use and an increase in the number of prescriptions for opioid substitution therapy. There were reductions in risky injecting practice and risky sexual behaviour. Participants reported improvements to service engagement and felt more equipped to access services on their own. The lived experience of the Peer Navigators was highlighted as particularly helpful, enabling the development of trusting, authentic and meaningful relationships. The relationship with the Peer Navigator was measured as excellent at baseline and follow-up. Some challenges were experienced in relation to the 'fit' of the intervention within some settings and will inform future studies. LIMITATIONS: Some participants did not complete the outcome measures, or did not complete both sets, meaning that we do not have baseline and/or follow-up data for all. The standard care data sample sizes make comparison between settings limited. CONCLUSIONS: A randomised controlled trial is recommended to assess the effectiveness of the Peer Navigator intervention. FUTURE WORK: A definitive cluster randomised controlled trial should particularly consider setting selection, outcomes and quantitative data collection instruments. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered as ISRCTN15900054. FUNDING: ; Vol. 26, No. 14. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
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 | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".