Supporting peer mentoring
Research type
Research Study
Full title
Identifying suitable tools to support peer mentoring – a consensus exercise
IRAS ID
265573
Contact name
Zhe Hui Hoo
Contact email
Sponsor organisation
Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
Duration of Study in the UK
0 years, 6 months, 29 days
Research summary
Cystic fibrosis (CF) is a lifelong condition which causes the lungs and digestive system to become clogged with thick, sticky mucus. This leads to recurrent lung infections and reduced nutrient absorption from food. The average age at death is 30 years, usually from respiratory failure. People with CF can benefit from a variety of preventative treatments to keep them healthy, by preventing acute infection and maintaining a good weight. However, treatment is burdensome and unsurprisingly adherence to these treatments is often poor.
CFHealthHub (CFHH) is a national self-management programme which consists of a 19-centre randomised control trial and a data observatory. Patient and public involvement during the pilot phase of CFHH have suggested that adding peer mentoring as a module within the CFHH platform could further enhance its ability to support treatment adherence.
The most suitable model to deliver peer mentoring in long-term conditions remain uncertain. A particular challenge is that the number of people able and willing to act as peers may be small. We plan a parsimonious model whereby a dedicated group of peers deal with online queries from multiple mentees. This study aims to identify suitable tools to support this model of peer mentoring.
We aim to recruit 25-30 participants consisting of adults with CF, health professionals who deliver intervention in CFHH and health psychologists with expertise in behaviour change. This study has four stages. In the first stage, background work will be done to generate a list of barriers to adherence and potential strategies to overcome those barriers. In the second stage, separate surveys for the three different groups of participants will be done to generate more ideas. The third stage is a joint voting round to elicit participants’ opinion to refine the initial list. The fourth stage is another joint voting round to achieve consensus.
REC name
London - Chelsea Research Ethics Committee
REC reference
19/LO/0929
Date of REC Opinion
24 May 2019
REC opinion
Favourable Opinion