Remote Peer-Mentorship In Osteoarthritis
Research type
Research Study
Full title
Remote osteoarthritis peer-mentorship for socioeconomically underserved people
IRAS ID
326583
Contact name
Gretl McHugh
Contact email
Sponsor organisation
University of Leeds
ISRCTN Number
ISRCTN78088278
Duration of Study in the UK
1 years, 11 months, 30 days
Research summary
Research Summary: Osteoarthritis is one of the most common causes of musculoskeletal disease. Support for self-management is one way to improve the management of osteoarthritis. Peer-support models are seen as an effective way to improve support for people to self-manage a long-term condition, such as osteoarthritis. The aim of this study is to develop a remote peer-mentorship intervention for people with hip and knee osteoarthritis who are experiencing socioeconomic disadvantage and explore if this programme is acceptable and useful. The study is designed in three phases: intervention development, intervention set-up and process evaluation. Phase 1 will consist of group discussions with people with hip and/or knee osteoarthritis who are experiencing socioeconomic disadvantage to explore their views around remote delivery of the peer-mentorship programme; and participatory workshops with public and community groups to help finalise the programme design. In Phase 2 we will recruit and train approximately 10-15 volunteer peer mentors to deliver the six-week peermentorship programme. In Phase 3 our trained volunteer peer mentors will deliver the programme to 25-30 participants with hip and/or knee osteoarthritis. We will collect information about the participants’ health and wellbeing via questionnaires at the start of the programme. We will interview the participants immediately after they have completed the programme and again at six months to explore their experience of being part of the study. We will also interview the peer mentors to explore their experiences of receiving training, delivering the programme and being supported as a peer mentor. At the end of Phase 3 we will carry out two Stakeholder Discussion Forums to explore how we could put the mentorship programme into practice. Study findings will be co-presented by the study team, peer mentors and PPI members and will include a discussion of the challenges and solutions to wider implementation of the intervention, and ways to maximise potential impact of the intervention for public and health professionals
Summary of Results:
This project’s aim was to develop a remote peer mentorship programme for people with hip and knee OA who are experiencing socioeconomic disadvantage; and to explore if this programme is acceptable and useful.The project involved three phases. In Phase 1, we carried out remote focus groups and one-to-one interviews with 20 people with osteoarthritis who were experiencing socioeconomic disadvantage to explore barriers and enablers to engagement with a remote osteoarthritis peer mentorship programme. We used the findings to make initial adaptations to an in-person osteoarthritis peer mentorship intervention from our previous work. To further adapt and finalise the intervention, we held two participatory workshops with 15 key stakeholders and four practice sessions with Patient and Public Involvement representatives. In Phase 2, we recruited and trained 14 volunteer peer mentors to deliver the peer mentorship programme. In Phase 3, 13 of the trained volunteer peer mentors delivered the remote peer mentorship programme to 30 participants (known as mentees) living with hip or knee osteoarthritis and experiencing socioeconomic disadvantage. Each mentee was matched with a peer mentor and invited to attend 6 remote peer mentorship sessions. We collected information about mentees’ health and wellbeing via questionnaires at the start of the programme. Mentees were interviewed twice; once after they completed the programme at six weeks, and again at six months. Peer mentors were also interviewed after completing their mentoring. Finally, we hosted two Stakeholder Discussion Forums with 12 key stakeholders to explore how we could put the peer mentorship programme into practice.
During Phase 1, we identified various barriers to using self-management strategies and attending remote OA peer mentorship sessions, such as insufficient knowledge about osteoarthritis, peer mentorship and self-management, and low confidence to make video calls. We also identified enablers to those target behaviours, such as having an empathetic peer mentor and personal motivations to self-manage.
In Phase 2, we evaluated the remote peer mentor training and estimated costs. Peer mentors found training informative and enjoyed interactive sessions with previous peer mentors. They felt motivated to fulfil their role. Length of remote training was arduous for some.
Phase 3 findings indicated that although mentee attendance at sessions was variable, engaged mentees gained knowledge about, and confidence to use, osteoarthritis self-management strategies. Engagement with mentorship support was helped by peer mentors and mentees developing good rapport. Peer mentors gained confidence in mentoring and were motivated by their mentee’s achievements.
Remote osteoarthritis peer mentorship is feasible with ongoing support and co-ordination of peer mentors and mentees. To optimise future delivery of this intervention, investment is needed in peer mentor recruitment and training to ensure a large pool of available skilled mentors. Flexible approaches to delivering the peer mentorship programme and support with digital skills are required for continued engagement of mentees with complex lives.
Dissemination: Our dissemination plans are ongoing but to date include: one peer review paper, a conference presentation (with a PPI member as a co-presenter); and a main report submitted our funders. Future dissemination plans include: two further conference presentations and 2 academic publications. We are in the process of providing a lay summary and infographic which summarises the study to all our study participants, PPI members, community organisations, NHS trusts and general practices who helped with the study. The main report will appear on the University’s White Rose repository.
REC name
West Midlands - South Birmingham Research Ethics Committee
REC reference
23/WM/0108
Date of REC Opinion
22 May 2023
REC opinion
Favourable Opinion