Peer Support for People with Chronic Conditions: A Systematic Review of Reviews

Peer Support for People with Chronic Conditions: A Systematic Review of Reviews | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Peer Support for People with Chronic Conditions: A Systematic Review of Reviews Dean M. Thompson, Lesley Booth, Jonathan Mathers This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-908557/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Published Journal Publication published 31 Mar, 2022 Read the published version in BMC Health Services Research → Version 1 posted 8 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Background: People with chronic conditions experience functional impairment, lower quality of life, and greater economic hardship and poverty. Social isolation and loneliness are common for people with chronic conditions, with multiple co-occurring chronic conditions predicting an increased risk of loneliness. Peer support is a socially driven intervention involving people with lived experience of a condition helping others to manage the same condition, potentially offering a sense of connectedness and purpose, and experiential knowledge to manage disease. However, it is unclear what outcomes are important to patients across the spectrum of chronic conditions, what works and for whom. The aims of this review were to (1) collate peer support intervention components, (2) collate the outcome domains used to evaluate peer support, (3) synthesise evidence of effectiveness, and (4) identify the mechanisms of effect, for people with chronic conditions. Methods: A systematic review of reviews was conducted. Reviews were included if they reported on formal peer support between adults or children with one or more chronic condition. Data were analysed using narrative synthesis. Results: The search identified 6222 unique publications. Thirty-one publications were eligible for inclusion. Components of peer support were organised into nine categories: social support, psychological support, practical support, empowerment, condition monitoring and treatment adherence, informational support, behavioural change, encouragement and motivation, and physical training. Fifty-five outcome domains were identified. Quality of life, and self-efficacy were the most measured outcome domains identified. Most reviews reported positive but non-significant effects. Conclusions: The effectiveness of peer support is unclear and there are inconsistencies in how peers are defined, a lack of clarity in research design and intervention reporting, and widely variable outcome measurement. This review presents a range of components of peer support interventions that may be of interest to clinicians developing new support programmes. However, it is unclear precisely what components to use and with whom. Therefore, implementation of support in different clinical settings may benefit from participatory action research so that services may reflect local need. Health Economics & Outcomes Research Health Policy Chronic conditions Peer support Review of reviews Systematic review Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Introduction Chronic conditions are diseases or illnesses, which typically persist for 12 months or more, resulting in functional impairments requiring health or social care intervention [1-2]. These include, though are not limited to cardiovascular disease, respiratory disease, cancer and diabetes. Global premature avertable mortality across 43 chronic conditions is estimated at 9,008 years of life lost per 100,000 population [3], and the prevalence of chronic conditions and multimorbidity is increasing in the 21st century [4]. Chronic conditions, for example diabetes, affects labour market participation with greater absence, unemployment, early retirement and disability pension [5], with total health care expenditure estimated at $727 billion [6]. Approximately 12-18% of NHS expenditure is directed towards chronic conditions associated with poor mental health [7]. People with chronic conditions experience lower quality of life [8], and greater economic hardship and poverty [9]. A sense of isolation, alienation and loneliness are common to people with chronic conditions [10], with multiple co-occurring chronic conditions predicting an increased risk of loneliness [11]. Loneliness is associated with a poorer course of disease progression and predicts treatment outcomes [12-13]. Progress in addressing chronic conditions has been inconsistent, with government policy insufficient to scale back the epidemic of disease [14]. In the US, people with chronic conditions without health insurance are less likely than those with health insurance to visit a healthcare professional [15], and the burden of disease is greatest in low- and middle-income countries where health and social care provision is scarce [16]. The World Health Organization (WHO) global action plan on noncommunicable disease relies on the overarching principle of empowerment of people and communities through participation in grass-roots organisations and the provision of tools to enable self-management [17]. People with chronic conditions spend as much as 2 hours per day on self-management of their health [18]. Much of this effort is informally supported by family who may lack experiential knowledge to offer holistic support while also being at heightened risk of experiencing emotional, social, physical and financial burden themselves [19-21]. Formal peer support interventions represent one potential solution to empower people to manage their own health, while reducing burden on informal carers and healthcare systems. Peer support involves people with lived experience of a condition helping others to manage the same condition, potentially offering a sense of connectedness and purpose, and experiential knowledge to manage disease. The introduction of formal peer support interventions such as the Stanford Chronic Disease Self-Management Program (CDSMP) and the Expert Patient Programme (EPP) offers potential for economies of scale and cost savings for healthcare services [22-24]. Major chronic conditions share common modifiable risk factors including unhealthy diet, physical inactivity, tobacco use, and harmful alcohol use, which feed into intermediate risk factors including raised blood pressure aside blood glucose, abnormal blood lipids and obesity. Yet most reviews of peer support focus on one chronic condition in isolation, and there are few reviews on peer support that cut across chronic conditions. Those that do are limited to online peer support [25-26], peer support specifically delivered in rural areas and other hard to reach populations [27-28], peer support for adolescent populations [29], peer support focused on chronic pain only [30], and meta-ethnography of qualitative research focused on self-reported experience of peer support [10]. It is unclear what outcomes are important across the spectrum of chronic conditions, what works and for whom. These uncertainties impede healthcare services and charitable organisations from developing, implementing and evaluating peer support interventions. As the WHO 2013-2020 global action plan draws to an end with limited progress in preventing and controlling noncommunicable disease, a systematic review of reviews on peer support summarising and comparing conclusions across chronic conditions is timely. The aims of this review of peer support in chronic conditions were to (1) describe peer support intervention components, (2) identify the outcome domains that have been used to evaluate peer support, (3) summarise evidence of effectiveness, and (4) identify mechanisms of effect that have been proposed for peer support interventions. Methods This review was written in accordance with PRISMA guidance (see Supplementary Material 1 for the PRISMA checklist). Protocol registration A systematic review of reviews protocol was written with reference to PRISMA guidelines [31], and registered on PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews) on 25 September 2019: CRD42019127906. Eligibility criteria Study eligibility criteria were developed using the PICOS (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, and Study design) framework. We included adults and children with one or more chronic condition, defined as a disease or illness, which typically persists for 12 months or more, resulting in functional impairments requiring health or social care intervention [1-2]. We included any peer support intervention, defined here as any formal support provided and received by people with a shared experience of having a chronic condition. ‘Formal’ peer support refers to interventions arranged by organisations rather than spontaneous peer support between individuals or groups in their day-to-day environment. No reviews were excluded on the basis of outcomes, comparators or control conditions. Any type of review listed in Grant and Booth's (2009) typology of reviews were included [32]. We excluded reviews where peer support interventions were not the primary focus of the review or where the intervention, outcome domain, effectiveness and mechanism data for peer support interventions could not be delineated from other types of interventions. Reviews that combined eligible and ineligible types of ‘peers’ were included if the intervention, outcome domain, effectiveness or mechanism data could be delineated by definition of ‘peer’. Information sources Six data sources were used: (1) electronic bibliographic databases (n=9) were searched on 30 th September 2019 and updated on 30 th July 2020, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Google Scholar, and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global; (2) PROSPERO was searched for ongoing systematic reviews and corresponding authors contacted for unpublished manuscripts; (3) one website was hand-searched (http://peersforprogress.org/); (4) forward citation tracking of included publications via Scopus, (5) backward citation tracking of included publications by hand-searching reference lists was performed; and (6) a preliminary list of included publications was sent to experts (n=53; authors of included reviews) requesting additional eligible publications. Search The search strategy combined terms for peer support with terms for chronic conditions. Peer support search terms were adapted from a published systematic review concerning peer support [33] and peer reviewed by an expert in literature search design. Terms for chronic conditions encompassed those conditions representing greater than 1% of global DALYs according to the World Health Organisation estimates (2018) [34], were specified in the search. The search strategy was tailored to each electronic bibliographic database and where available and possible used index terms in addition to free text terms (see Supplementary Material 2 for the search strategy used for MEDLINE). Study selection Citations were exported into Clarivate Analytics’ EndNote X9 software [35], and duplicates were removed by using the ‘find duplicate’ function and manually hand-searching the list of publications. DT screened the title and abstract of each identified publication against the inclusion criteria. A randomly selected sample of 10% of title and abstracts were independently assessed by CP. The full text of each publication was screened by DT. A randomly selected sample of 10% of full texts were independently assessed by JM. Data items For each publication, we extracted data on: (1) review information including the type of review, review aims, definition of peer support used in the reviews, review eligibility criteria, primary research design, primary research comparators, date of searches and review risk of bias appraisal tool and appraisal findings; (2) setting of primary research; (3) participants of primary research, including demographic and clinical characteristics; (4) the peer support programmes used in primary research (adapted from [36-37]; (5) outcome measurement domains used in primary research; (6) a narrative summary of reviews findings on effectiveness; and (7) theories and mechanisms of effect reported in the findings of included publications. DT and JM independently piloted the data extraction table with a sample of 5 publications. DT and JM discussed their data extraction. Discrepancies were identified and resolved through discussion and the data extraction table instructions were refined. Risk of bias in individual reviews Included reviews underwent critical appraisal using AMSTAR 2 [37]. AMSTAR 2 is a 16-item measurement tool to assess systematic reviews, though was applied to other types of reviews to enable a best evidence synthesis. DT assessed each included review against each of the 16 items. A randomly selected sample of 10% of included reviews were independently assessed by JM. Each review was organised into AMSTAR 2 categories including critically low, low, moderate, and high overall confidence in the results of the review [38]. Synthesis of results A 3-stage narrative synthesis was conducted based on Popay and colleagues’ (2006) guidance [39]. Stage 1 involved developing a preliminary synthesis. Intervention components, outcome domains, and mechanisms of effect in peer support interventions were tabulated and an initial framework was developed using simple content analysis to group related data [40]. Vote counting was performed to determine the number of reviews identifying each intervention component, outcome domain, and mechanism. The identified components, outcomes, and mechanisms were iteratively grouped from the bottom-up using the extracted data. The effectiveness of the peer support interventions was tabulated for the outcome domains most frequently reported by the included reviews. Pooled effect sizes from the included reviews were reported here where available. Where these were not available, we performed vote counting on the number primary studies reporting significant between-groups findings where available, and significant within-group differences where no other data were available. Stage 2 involved exploring relationships between studies. Effectiveness data and mechanisms of effect are presented according to chronic condition. Stage 3 involved assessing the robustness of the synthesis. A best evidence synthesis of intervention components, outcome domains, effectiveness, and mechanisms of effect in high quality reviews (based on AMSTAR2) was planned. Results Study selection The search identified 6222 unique publications (Figure 1). Of the 215 screened full-texts, 184 were excluded (see Supplementary Material 3 for list of and reasons for excluding each publication from electronic bibliographic databases). Thirty-one publications were eligible for inclusion [10, 25, 27, 36-37, 41-66]. Developing a preliminary synthesis and exploring relationships between studies Study characteristics Reported review types include systematic reviews (n=14), literature reviews (n=6), reviews including meta-analysis (n=6), scoping reviews (n=3), and qualitative evidence syntheses (n=2). The primary research designs reported in the reviews were organised into 4 tiers (Figure 2), including Randomised control designs (number of reviews including this design=26), Non-randomised comparative designs (n=13), Single group observational studies (n=12), and Qualitative studies (n=5). Randomised controlled designs included RCTs (n=26), and CRTs (n=4; see Supplementary Material 4 for study datasets). Non-randomised comparative designs included non-randomised comparative studies (n=6), quasi-experimental design (n=3), cross-sectional studies (n=3), a survey with comparison group (n=1), and a case comparison study (n=1). Single group observational studies included pre-post studies (n=7), descriptive studies (n=6), and surveys without comparison group (n=2). Qualitative studies included unspecified qualitative research (n=3), interviews (n=2), focus groups (n=1), and participant observation (n=1). Some reviews reported primary research designs which could not be categorised or did not appear to be evaluative including feasibility or pilot studies (n=2), an experimental study (n=1), a case study (n=1), and a needs assessment (n=1). The conditions reviewed included cancer (n=9), diabetes (n=7), cardiovascular disease (n=4), acquired brain injury, cerebral palsy, and spina bifida (n=1), asthma (n=1), kidney disease (n=1), HIV (n=1), and somatic illness (n=1). Six reviews included any chronic condition. The reviews included primary research across 26 countries or semi-autonomous regions (Figure 3). Reviews reported on primary research based in USA (n=24), Australia (n=14), Canada (n=12), the UK (n=11), Republic of Ireland (n=6), Netherlands (n=4), Argentina (n=3), China, Germany, Mozambique, South Korea, Sweden, Uganda, and Vietnam (n=2); Austria, Botswana, Denmark, Hong Kong, Iran, Israel, Jordan, Mali, Philippines, South Africa, Spain, and Taiwan (n=1). Reviews reported on primary research based in community settings (n=8), general hospitals (n=5), outpatient clinics (n=4), HIV/AIDS clinics (n=3), school or other educational settings (n=3), US Veterans Affairs centres (n=3), camps (n=2), primary care settings (n=2), church (n=1), haemodialysis centre (n=1), HIV/AIDS clinical trials unit (n=1), infectious disease hospital unit (n=1), physiotherapy department (n=1), public health clinic (n=1), seniors’ centre (n=1), stroke rehabilitation centre (n=1), University clinic (n=1), workplace (n=1). Peer support intervention description Reviews reported on peer support delivered in groups (n=21) and one-to-one (n=17), by telephone (n=21), face-to-face (n=16), and online (n=13). Descriptions of peer support intervention components most frequently comprised education (n=13), self-management techniques (n=9), discussion (n=7), reciprocal support (n=7), sharing personal experiences, and unspecified social support (n=6). Other specific forms of social support were numerous, wide ranging, and are listed in full in Table 1. Peers were consistently defined by their role in providing or exchanging support between people with similar experiences or circumstances, though only seven specified that this similarity extends to first-hand experience of living with a shared chronic condition, and three reviews did not give a definition of what constitutes peer support. The duration of peer support interventions ranged from a single session to 2 years. Most reviews reported on interventions with one contact per week, with a range of daily (for up to 1 week) to 3- and 12-monthly follow-ups. Peer training content and methods were organised into 11 categories including delivery methods, counselling skills, communication skills, condition and treatment information and adherence, meta-competency and safety, social skills and story sharing, intervention and pedagogical theory, culture and religion, physical training techniques, intervention facilitation skills, and availability of community resources. Training most frequently involved teaching communication skills (n=7), condition and treatment information (n=5; see Supplementary Material 5 for training description table). Five reviews reported whether primary research peer support included the use of an intervention manual. Eleven reviews reported on the supervision of peer support. Three reviews simply indicated whether supervision was a component of the primary research intervention, and 2 reviews indicated whether supervision was professionally delivered. Six reviews described supervision in more detail including supervision of the first session only (n=1), weekly supervision from a psychologist, nurse, and community outreach coordinator (n=1), a study coordinator called participants to identify problems, including problems with the peer support relationship at week 3 of the intervention (n=1), an endocrinologist, an exercise physiologist and an exercise health psychologist were available to answer questions throughout the study period (n=1), psychologist supervision (n=1), nurse supervision (n=1), facilitators were present to ensure fidelity to the research protocol (n=1), children and young people overseen by adults (n=1). Four reviews reported on screening practices to recruit peer support workers based on success (e.g. reduction in severity of condition or improved self-management) from past treatment (n=1), previous experience facilitating a group, ability to motivate, good listening and problem-solving skills (n=1), knowledge of diabetes and an interest in helping people and effective communication patterns (n=1), a competency test involving role play (n=1), severity of chronic condition (n=1); from the same community (n=1), demonstration of leadership qualities (n=1), ability to engage in conversation (n=1), give information clearly (n=1), share experiences and display appropriate listening skills (n=1). Twelve reviews reported on peer matching including matching by age (n=5), ethnicity (n=2), cultural similarities (n=2), type of cancer (n=2), life factors (n=1), gender (n=1), primary language (n=1), men who have sex with men (n=1), chronic pain (n=1), injection drug use (n=1), ex-smoker status (n=1). Table 1 Intervention description table Intervention components Number of reviews Education 13 (42%) Self-management 9 (29%) Discussion 7 (23%) Reciprocally giving support to others 7 (23%) Sharing personal experiences 6 (19%) Unspecified social support 6 (19%) Medications advice/ adherence 5 (16%) Emotional support 4 (13%) Activity scheduling/ planning leisure activities 3 (10%) Addressing unspecified psychosocial issues 3 (10%) Cognitive techniques 3 (10%) Community outreach 3 (10%) Encouragement 3 (10%) Goal setting 3 (10%) Mentoring 3 (10%) Modelled recovery 3 (10%) Addressing physical health concerns 2 (6%) Counselling 2 (6%) Exercise 2 (6%) Monitoring condition/ symptoms 2 (6%) Psychoeducation 2 (6%) Strategic thinking 2 (6%) Talking Circles (native American cultural discussion facilitation) 2 (6%) Unspecified psychological support 2 (6%) Answered patient questions 1 (3%) Bullying support 1 (3%) Coping skills 1 (3%) Decision making 1 (3%) Developing relationships 1 (3%) Emphasise personal achievement 1 (3%) Encouraging contact with clinicians 1 (3%) Lifestyle change exercises 1 (3%) Low-level advice 1 (3%) Lead group activities 1 (3%) Mindfulness 1 (3%) Motivational support 1 (3%) Needs assessment 1 (3%) Outings for social integration and networking 1 (3%) Problem-solving 1 (3%) Recognising trauma 1 (3%) Relaxation techniques 1 (3%) Smoking cessation counselling 1 (3%) Unspecified behavioural change 1 (3%) Unspecified practical support 1 (3%) Ways of taking action 1 (3%) Outcome domains Fifty-five outcome domains were identified and organised across 15 categories (Table 2). Mental health and psychosocial processes and adjustment were the most frequently reported outcome categories. Quality of life (n=14), self-efficacy (n=14), clinical surrogates (n=12), depression (n=11), distress (n=11), and health knowledge (n=9) were the most frequently analysed outcome domains in reviews. Psychosocial process and adjustment was the most variably measured category, spanning 21 outcome domains. Table 2 Outcome domains identified in reviews Domains Number of reviews Mental health 18 (58%) Depression 11 (35%) Distress 11 (35%) Anxiety 7 (23%) Mental health 5 (16%) Post-traumatic stress 2 (6%) Wellbeing 2 (6%) Suicidal ideation 1 (3%) Psychosocial processes & adjustment 16 (52%) Self-efficacy/ confidence 14 (45%) Optimism/ Pessimism/ Hope 4 (13%) Coping 3 (10%) Empowerment 3 (10%) Social coping 3 (10%) Adjustment 2 (6%) Psychosexual functioning 2 (6%) Altruism 1 (3%) Catharsis 1 (3%) Comfort with clinician 1 (3%) Illness uncertainty 1 (3%) Motivation to volunteer 1 (3%) Negative affect 1 (3%) Perceived threat of condition 1 (3%) Positive upward comparison 1 (3%) Post-traumatic growth 1 (3%) Self-understanding 1 (3%) Sense of coherence 1 (3%) Spirituality 1 (3%) Stigma 1 (3%) Suppression of affect 1 (3%) Quality of life 14 (45%) Clinical surrogate* 12 (39%) Physical health & function 12 (39%) Functional status 5 (16%) Health status 4 (13%) Physical health 4 (13%) Adverse events 1 (3%) Social integration & connectedness 12 (39%) Social support 8 (26%) Connectedness/ social network 3 (10%) Social isolation 3 (10%) Acculturation 1 (3%) Community integration 1 (3%) Interpersonal relationships 1 (3%) Health knowledge 9 (29%) Health care utilisation 9 (29%) Health behaviour 8 (26%) Self-care 8 (26%) Treatment adherence 8 (26%) Symptom severity 6 (19%) Condition symptom severity 5 (16%) Pain severity 2 (6%) General level of activity 4 (13%) Quality of communication with others 3 (10%) Mortality 1 (3%) *Clinical surrogates: Blood glucose (Fasting blood glucose); Blood pressure (Diastolic blood pressure & Systolic blood pressure); CD4 cell count; Estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate (eGFR); Glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c); Lipid Levels/ Lipid Profile (High-density lipoproteins & Low-density lipoproteins); Prostate-specific antigen; Resting heart rate; Triglyceride; Urinalysis (Glycosuria, Microhematuria, or Proteinuria); Viral Load; Weight (Body fat, Waist circumference, or Body Mass Index) Effectiveness For the most frequently identified outcome domains, the majority of reviews reported mostly statistically non-significant effects of peer support (Table 3). Though most reviews reported findings favouring peer support, Table 3 shows that these were rarely significant. Few reviews found a statistically significant effect favouring peer support in a majority of the primary research measuring quality of life (n=1/12), self-efficacy (n=3/14), clinical surrogates (n=1/8), depression (n=1/10), distress (n=2/11), and health knowledge (n=4/9). Three meta-analyses pooled data on clinical surrogates, indicating small to medium statistically significant differences in favour of peer support effect sizes for HBA1c [55, 64-65]. Effect sizes were small though not statistically significant for quality of life and depression [53, 59], and negligible and not statistically significant for distress [54]. Table 3 Effect size (MD) of peer support interventions (or number of significant findings of primary studies) Quality of life Self-efficacy Clinical surrogates Depression Distress Health knowledge Acquired brain injury, cerebral palsy, and spina bifida Levy 2019 2/5 Asthma Kew 2017 n=3, 0.40 (95% CI -0.02 to 0.81) favouring peer support Cancer Campbell 2004 0/5 0/1 Dunn 2003 0/1 0/1 0/1 * 0/2 Hoey 2008 0/3 1/3 1/3 0/3 0/8 Macvean 2008 0/1 0/1 1/3 McCaughan 2017 n=3, -0.11 (95% CI -0.47 to 0.24) favouring peer support n=5, -0.37 (95% CI -0.75 to 0.00) favouring peer support 0/1 Meyer 2015 * 2/2 0/1 0/4 * 1/2 Hu 2019 * 2/3 * 2/3 1/6 * 2/4 * 2/3 Cardiovascular disease Parry 2010 0/1 * 1/2 Small 2013 * HBA1c n=4, -0.26 (95% CI -0.41 to -0.11, I 2 = 47.6% favouring peer support; Blood pressure n=1, −0.25 (95% CI −0.45 to −0.05) favouring peer support Chronic disease Enriquez 2016 0/2 * HBA1c 1/2, Virologic failure/viral load 2/3, CD4 cell count 1/2, Blood pressure 1/1 * 1/2 0/1 Fisher 2017 0/1 0/2 3/7 0/2 Dale 2008 0/2 0/1 Chronic kidney disease Bennett 2018 0/2 0/1 Diabetes Cici 2018 0/2 0/12 0/2 0/2 Dale 2012 2/5 HBA1c 4/14, Blood pressure 2/5, Cholesterol 1/6,Weight/BMI/Body Fat 5/9 * 2/3 Gatlin 2017 1/3 1/3 HBA1c 2/6, Blood pressure 2/5, Lipid profiles 0/4, Weight/BMI/Waist circumference 1/7 0/1 * 1/2 2/5 Kong 2020 n=10, -0.06 (95% CI -0.22 to 0.10) favouring peer support Krishnamoorthy 2018 * HBA1c n=26, −0.28 (95% CI −0.45 to −0.11) favouring peer support Qi 2015 * HBA1c n=13, −0.57 (95% CI −0.78 to −0.36) favouring peer support Tang 2011 0/1 0/1 Glycaemic control 1/2, Lipid profile 0/1, Blood pressure 0/2, Weight/BMI 0/1 0/1 0/1 HIV Boucher 2020 0/4 0/3 0/6 1/5 0/1 0/1 * Effect size (CI 95%) favours intervention, or at least half of primary research studies in reviews demonstrates significant difference Mechanisms Twenty-three mechanisms or theories were identified across 9 reviews (Table 4). Most mechanisms or theories were identified in two reviews that focused on theory and treatment experience [10, 42]. Most reviews did not aim to address intervention theory. Appraisal, emotional and informational social support (n=5), social cognitive theory (n=3), and social comparison theory (n=3) were the most frequently cited mechanisms or theories of effect in peer support interventions. Table 4 Mechanisms identified in reviews Social cognitive theory IMB Theory Uncertainty management theory Appraisal, emotional, informational support Illness or Social identity theory Readiness stage of wellness motivation Theory of planned behaviour Empowerment Peer leadership or advocacy Sense of connection Experiential knowledge Finding meaning Isolation Sharing Helping Reciprocity Role satisfaction Emotional entanglement Self-determination & autonomy motivation Social comparison theory Orem’s self-care theory Rodger’s person-centred approach Collective voice & mobilisation Cancer Dunn 2003 ✓ Lee 2018 ✓ ✓ Meyer 2015 ✓ Walshe 2018 ✓ ✓ Chronic disease Embuldeniya ‘13 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Enriquez 2016 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Diabetes Qi 2015 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ HIV Boucher 2020 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Somatic illness Kingod 2017 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ IMB Theory (Information, motivation, and behavioural skills health behaviour model); Biopsychosocial ICF theoretical framework (Biopsychosocial International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health theoretical framework) Assessing the robustness of the synthesis Overall confidence in reviews were rated high in two Cochrane reviews [46, 53], low (n=5) and critically low (n=24). Most reviews were rated ‘critically low’ due to 2 recurring critical weaknesses: absence of explicit reference to a protocol established prior to the conduct of the review (n=16), and the absence of reference to a list of excluded studies and justification for exclusions (n=18; Table 5). However, each of these reviews did not necessarily set out to be read as a comprehensive systematic review. Of the reviews that assessed risk of bias, most used the Cochrane risk of bias tool (n=13), and a further three referred to the EPOC-specific Cochrane risk of bias tool [67]. Reviews’ risk of bias findings were rated favourably with low risk of bias and high confidence in the findings (n=5); equivocal or unclear (n=6); and rated unfavourably with high risk of bias and low confidence in the findings (n=8). Best evidence synthesis Due to a lack of ‘high quality’ comprehensive systematic reviews, this best evidence synthesis presents a descriptive summary of Dale and colleagues (2008) and Kew and colleagues (2017) only [46, 53]. Dale and colleagues reviewed across chronic conditions, though included some primary research involving peers without direct experience of a shared chronic conditions (i.e., people with shared spiritual beliefs). We abstracted only data concerning people with direct experience of a shared chronic condition (post myocardial infarction or with angina). Peer support included educational telephone-based interventions based in Australia and USA. Dale and colleagues measured health status, mental health, quality of life, self-efficacy, and behaviour change (i.e., diet). No differences were found between any physical health outcomes, mental health, quality of life or self-efficacy. Peer support telephone calls were associated with dietary change in one primary research study only. Kew and colleagues (2017) reviewed peer support for asthma [53]. Peer support comprised education, strategic thinking, discussion, and encouragement in the context of the Triple A programme that teaches older participants to educate and empower their peers based in Australia, Jordan, and USA. Kew and colleagues measured quality of life, severity of asthma (via exacerbations requiring a course of oral steroids, and asthma control), health care use, health behaviours (i.e., smoking), and adverse events. The asthma-related quality of life random-effects model was imprecise and showed no differences (MD 0.40, 95% confidence interval -0.02 to 0.81). Most other outcomes did not show an effect favouring peer support. One study found a reduction in adherence in peer support and comparator. Asthma control and nicotine dependence favoured peer support, though this finding was not statistically significant. Meta‐analysis was prevented by heterogeneity between studies, weaknesses in blinding and incomplete reporting. Both reviews shared the conclusion that their findings should be interpreted with caution due to weaknesses in the underlying primary research literature, and that more high-quality clinical trials are indicated. Discussion This systematic review of reviews indicates that peer support may be effective for people with chronic conditions. However, there are methodological weaknesses across the underlying research literature and there is a lack of consistent statistically significant effects of peer support across the included reviews. Therefore, at present it is not possible to draw definitive conclusions about effectiveness, although the potential for peer support interventions is apparent. An obvious difficulty in drawing conclusions is the wide range of intervention components, modalities, and definitions of what constitutes a ‘peer’ identified in this review. Peer support is a complex intervention. Several theories and mechanisms of effect were described in a minority of the reviews included in this study. Peer support was broadly conceptualised as a social intervention. According to Social identity theory , group membership confers a sense of belonging that acts as a behavioural guide via a set of ingroup social norms [69]. Therefore, it is plausible that the success of peer support may partly depend on how group membership is defined by the recipient of peer support – people with shared clinical characteristics, or people from the same neighbourhood with similar demographics characteristics. Similarly, social comparison theory posits that people use peer support to evaluate themselves in relation to others to validate their thoughts, emotions, and experiences, and make positive upward social comparisons to create a sense of hope in a process of recovery or self-management [69]. Understanding how such comparisons might diverge between peers matched on the basis of experiential knowledge of a condition and those with shared demographic factors or other circumstances could help to plan peer support programmes that mitigate the negative impact of less positive social comparisons. Embuldeniya and colleagues (2013) [10] review of mechanisms of peer support reinforces the importance of a shared condition contributing to the bonds formed between people in peer support, and helping others enabled peers to find meaning in their own chronic condition, suggesting that peer support may result in different outcomes depending on how ‘peerness’ is defined. However, relatively few reviews and underpinning primary research explore how peer support works, nor answer specific questions about variation in effectiveness of different types of peers. As a consequence, the extent to which peer support can be optimized by targeting mechanisms of effect remains unclear. Mediation analysis of peer-matching in peer support would be one approach to investigate the importance of this variable, which would inform process measurement in clinical trials. No single outcome domain was measured across all primary research, suggesting a lack of consensus on what is essential to measure in peer support interventions. This study highlighted that it is common practice to measure clinical recovery in outcome measurement (symptom remission to ‘get back to normal’) alongside psychosocial processes of personal recovery such as a sense of connectedness. However, some reviews solely focused on physical symptoms of chronic conditions [55, 63]. Most reviews of peer support synthesised clinical surrogates and mental health outcomes, acknowledging the co-occurrence of chronic physical conditions and mental health problems [70]. However, mental health problems are not simply a symptom of an underlying chronic health condition that can uniformly be addressed by taking away the chronic condition. If peer support does indeed work through creating a sense of connectedness and hope derived from upward social comparisons, it is important to evaluate these processes of personal recovery more consistently in future research [71]. As few as four studies measured a sense of hope and three measured connectedness. The inconsistency in outcome measurement highlighted by this study points toward a lack of consensus regarding what and how to measure when evaluating peer support interventions to enable comparisons in future evidence syntheses which may in turn inform commissioning of new peer support services. A core outcome set is a standardised minimum set of outcomes that should be measured in all clinical trials in an area of health or social care. Research to develop a core outcome set through Delphi consensus methodology would help the research community to bridge this gap. Confidence in the quality of the included reviews was mostly low or critically low when measured against AMSTAR 2. Most included reviews omitted explicit reference to a protocol established prior to the conduct of the review and a reference to a list of excluded studies with justification for exclusions. Furthermore, many of the included reviews did not assess risk of bias nor robustly conduct study selection and data abstraction in duplicate. Though the authors of the included reviews may not have set out to produce methodologically robust systematic reviews, some of the published reports made conclusive remarks about the effectiveness of peer support without critical appraisal of the primary research informing this view. Therefore, renewed efforts to review the peer support literature ought to be preceded by accessible protocols detailing a robust systematic approach to the literature to facilitate the commissioners’ decision-making process in funding peer support services. This study presents peer support intervention components summarised in other reviews rather than lengthier descriptions of interventions in primary research. As a result, these data do not represent a complete and detailed catalogue of all published forms of peer support. Furthermore, due to the variation in outcomes measured, and inconsistent findings between them, it is not possible to conclude what works, for whom, and in what circumstances with these data. The value of understanding the mechanisms of effect in peer support has also been acknowledged in Gopalan and colleagues’ (2017) scoping review of youth peer support for mental health problems [72]. Realist research would be well-suited to exploring these uncertainties to produce a programme theory that explores the mechanisms of effect and highlights the active ingredients to facilitate change. Conclusion The evidence base for peer support comprises a wide range of definitions, theories, and methods of peer support. Peers were variably defined as people sharing the same chronic condition, family and friends, community health workers and others in the community, some combination of the above, or not defined at all. This leads to two challenges. Firstly, by attempting to synthesise primary research that adopts different definitions of ‘peerness’ and different theories and components of peer support interventions, evidence syntheses often struggle to compare apples and oranges. Secondly, attempts to pool data from heterogeneous interventions risks overlooking opportunities for learning between different paradigms of peer support across settings and conditions. This systematic review of reviews focused on peer support between people with a shared chronic condition. In doing so, this review compares a set of interventions that cohere around concepts of shared identity informed by direct lived experience of a chronic condition. However, this prevented any exploration of similarities and differences between different conceptualisations of ‘peerness’. As other gaps in the literature recommended in this discussion are addressed, and update to this review using a meta-narrative design would help to unpick such a heterogeneous topic by comparing and contrasting the different ways in which clinical services and academics have developed and evaluated peer support for people across a broad spectrum of chronic conditions. This review presents a range of components of peer support interventions that may be of interest to clinicians when developing new peer support programmes. However, there is a lack of high-quality primary research underpinning few robust systematic reviews, which limits understanding of what components of peer support to use and with whom. Until this changes, the implementation of peer support in different clinical settings may benefit from participatory action research so that services may reflect patient preference at a local level. Furthermore, for those clinical services intending to implement novel peer support interventions, this review provides a matrix of mechanisms of effect that may guide theory-driven intervention development. Though four major chronic conditions (cancer, diabetes, cardiovascular, and chronic respiratory disease) are well-represented in reviews focusing exclusively on peer support between people with a chronic condition, there was a marked absence of reviews on many other prevalent chronic conditions with different pathologies and lived experience. This review highlights a window of opportunity to scope the literature to determine whether there is a need for further primary research or systematic reviews of peer support for chronic conditions absent from this review. Abbreviations AMSTAR: A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews; CDSMP: Chronic Disease Self-Management Program; EPP: Expert Patient Programme; MD: Mean difference; PICOS: Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, and Study design; PROSPERO: International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews; WHO: World Health Organization Declarations Ethics approval and consent to participate Not applicable. Consent for publication Not applicable. Availability of data and materials Included study data are included in this report’s supplementary information files. Competing interests The authors declare that they have no competing interests. Funding This work was part supported by a grant from Bowel Research UK. Authors’ Contributions DT conceived the research with JM and LB, and each contributed to the review protocol. DT and JM carried out identification and eligibility screening of studies. DT drafted the initial manuscript. Each author revised the manuscript for important intellectual content and gave approval of the final version. Acknowledgements We would like to thank Dr David Moore who kindly peer-reviewed the search strategy and search terms that form the basis of this work. References Goodman, R. A., Posner, S. F., Huang, E. S., Parekh, A. K., & Koh, H. K. Defining and measuring chronic conditions: imperatives for research, policy, program, and practice. Prev Chronic Dis . 2013;10:e66. doi:10.5888/pcd10.120239 Hwang, W., Weller, W., Ireys, H., & Anderson, G. Out-Of-Pocket Medical Spending For Care Of Chronic Conditions. Health Aff. 2001;20:267-78. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.20.6.267 Martinez R, Lloyd-Sherlock P, Soliz P, et al. Trends in premature avertable mortality from non-communicable diseases for 195 countries and territories, 1990–2017: A population-based study. Lancet Glob Health. 2020;8:e511–23. Van Oostrom, S. H., Gijsen, R., Stirbu, I., Korevaar, J. C., Schellevis, F. G., Picavet, H. S. J., & Hoeymans, N. Time Trends in Prevalence of Chronic Diseases and Multimorbidity Not Only due to Aging: Data from General Practices and Health Surveys. PLoS One. 2016;11:e0160264. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0160264 Pedron, S., Emmert-Fees, K., Laxy, M., & Schwettmann, L. The impact of diabetes on labour market participation: A systematic review of results and methods. BMC Public Health. 2019;19:25. doi:10.1186/s12889-018-6324-6 International Diabetes Federation. IDF Diabetes Atlas. 2017. Retrieved from Brussels, Belgium: http://www.diabetesatlas.org Naylor, C., Parsonage, M., McDaid, D., Knapp, M., Fossey, M. and Galea, A. Long-term conditions and mental health: the cost of co-morbidities . The King's Fund, London, UK Megari, K. (2013). Quality of life in chronic disease patients. Health Psychol Res. 2012;1:27. doi:10.4081/hpr.2013.e27 Jeon, Y.-H., Essue, B., Jan, S., Wells, R., & Whitworth, J. A. Economic hardship associated with managing chronic illness: a qualitative inquiry. BMC Health Serv Res. 2009;9:182. doi:10.1186/1472-6963-9-182 Embuldeniya, G. V., Bell, P.,Bell, E., Mary; Nyhof-Young, J., Sale, J.E.M. & Britten, N. The experience and impact of chronic disease peer support interventions: a qualitative synthesis. Patient Educ. Couns. 2013;92 :3-12. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2013.02.002 Stickley, A., & Koyanagi, A. Physical multimorbidity and loneliness: A population-based study. PLoS One. 2018;13(1):e0191651. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0191651 Hawkley, L. C., & Cacioppo, J. T. Loneliness Matters: A Theoretical and Empirical Review of Consequences and Mechanisms. Ann. Behav. Med . 2010;40:218-27. doi:10.1007/s12160-010-9210-8 Reijnders, T., Schuler, M., Jelusic, D., Troosters, T., Janssens, W., Schultz, K., & Von Leupoldt, A. The Impact of Loneliness on Outcomes of Pulmonary Rehabilitation in Patients with COPD. Chronic Obstr. Pulm. Dis. 2018;15:446-53. doi:10.1080/15412555.2018.1471128 NCD Countdown 2030 collaborators. NCD Countdown 2030: pathways to achieving Sustainable Development Goal target 3.4. Lancet, 2020;396:918–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31761-X Wilper, A. P., Woolcer, S., Lasser, K. E., McCormick, D., Bor, D. H., & Himmelstein, D. U. A national study of chronic disease prevalence and access to care in uninsured U.S. adults. Ann. Intern. Med. 2008;149:170–76. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-149-3-200808050-00006 Stuckler, D., Basu, S., & McKee, M. Drivers of inequality in Millennium Development Goal progress: a statistical analysis. PLoS Medicine. 2010;7:e1000241. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000241 World Health Organization. Global action plan for the prevention and control of noncommunicable diseases 2013-2020. 2013. Retrieved from http://www.who.int/iris/handle/10665/94384 Jowsey, T., Yen, L., & W, P. M. Time spent on health related activities associated with chronic illness: a scoping literature review. BMC Public Health. 2012;12:1044. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-12-1044 Adelman, R. D., Tmanova, L. L., Delgado, D., Dion, S., & Lachs, M. S. Caregiver burden: a clinical review. JAMA. 2014; 311 :1052–60. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2014.304 Courtin, E., Jemiai, N., & Mossialos, E. Mapping support policies for informal carers across the European Union. Health Policy. 2014;118:84–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2014.07.013 Fujisawa, R. & Colombo, F. The Long-Term Care Workforce: Overview and Strategies to Adapt Supply to a Growing Demand. OECD Health Working Papers. 2009;44. OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/225350638472 . Lorig, K. R., Ritter, P., Stewart, A. L., Sobel, D. S., Brown Jr, B. W., Bandura, A., et al. Chronic disease self-management program: 2-year health status and health care utilization outcomes. Med Care. 2001;39:1217–23. Wilson, P. M., Kendall, S., & Brooks, F. The Expert Patients Programme: a paradox of patient empowerment and medical dominance. Health Soc. Care Community. 2007; 15 :426–38. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2524.2007.00701.x Wingate, L., Graffy, J., Holman, D., & Simmons, D. Can peer support be cost saving? An economic evaluation of RAPSID: a randomized controlled trial of peer support in diabetes compared to usual care alone in East of England communities. BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care. 2017; 5 :e000328. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjdrc-2016-000328 Kingod, N., Cleal, B., Wahlberg, A., & Husted, G. R. (2017). Online Peer-to-Peer Communities in the Daily Lives of People With Chronic Illness: A Qualitative Systematic Review. Qual Health Res . 2017;27:89–99. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732316680203 Munce, S., Shepherd, J., Perrier, L., Allin, S., Sweet, S. N., Tomasone, J. R., Nelson, M., Guilcher, S., Hossain, S., & Jaglal, S. Online peer support interventions for chronic conditions: A scoping review protocol. BMJ Open. 2017;7:e017999. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017999 Lauckner, H. M. H., Susan L. Peer support for people with chronic conditions in rural areas: a scoping review. Rural Remote Health . 2016;16 :3601. Sokol, R., & Fisher, E. Peer Support for the Hardly Reached: A Systematic Review. Am J Public Health, 2016;106:1308. http://dx.doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2016.303180a Kohut, S. A., Stinson, J., van Wyk, M., Giosa, L., & Luca, S. Systematic review of peer support interventions for adolescents with chronic illness. Int J Child Adolesc Health. 2014;7:183-97. Cooper, K., Kirkpatrick, P., & Wilcock, S. The effectiveness of peer support interventions for community-dwelling adults with chronic non-cancer pain: A systematic review. JBI Database Syst Rev Implement. 2014;12:319-48. http://dx.doi.org/10.11124/jbisrir-2014-1590 Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, Shekelle P, Stewart L. A. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015;4:1. doi: 10.1186/2046-4053-4-1 Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Info Libr J. 2009;26:91–108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x Pitt, V., Lowe, D., Hill, S., Prictor, M., Hetrick, S. E., Ryan, R., & Berends, L. Consumer-providers of care for adult clients of statutory mental health services. Cochrane Database Syst Rev . 2013;3:CD004807. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD004807.pub2 World Health Organization. WHO methods and data sources for global burden of disease 2000-2016. Global Health Estimates Technical Paper. 2018;WHO/HIS/HSI/GHE/2016.4. Geneva: World Health Organization. Retrieved from ( http://www.who.int/healthinfo/statistics/GlobalDALYmethods_2000_2016.pdf ). EndNote reference management software. Clarivate Analytics. 2019;Version X9 Hoey, L. M. I., Sandra C.; White, Victoria M.; Jefford, Michael. Systematic review of peer-support programs for people with cancer. Patient Educ. Couns . 2008;70:315-37. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2007.11.016 Meyer, A., Coroiu, A., & Korner, A. One-to-one peer support in cancer care: a review of scholarship published between 2007 and 2014. Eur J Cancer Care. 2015;24:299–312. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecc.12273 Shea, B. J., Reeves, B. C., Wells, G., Thuku, M., Hamel, C., Moran, J., et al. AMSTAR 2: A critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ. 2017;j4008. doi:10.1136/bmj.j4008 Popay, J., Roberts, H., Sowden, A., Petticrew, M., Arai, L., Rodgers, M., et al. Guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic reviews: A product of the ESRC methods programme. 2006;(Version I). Lancaster, UK: University of Lancaster. Hsieh, H. F. & Shannon, S. E. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res. 2005;15:1277-88. Bennett, P. N., St Clair Russell, J., Atwal, J., Brown, L., & Schiller, B. Patient-to-patient peer mentor support in dialysis: Improving the patient experience. Semin Dial. 2018;31:455–61. https://doi.org/10.1111/sdi.12703 Boucher, L. M., Liddy, C., Mihan, A., & Kendall, C. Peer-led Self-management Interventions and Adherence to Antiretroviral Therapy Among People Living with HIV: A Systematic Review. AIDS Behav. 2020; 24:998-1022. doi:10.1007/s10461-019-02690-7 Campbell, H. S., Phaneuf, M. R. & Deane, K. Cancer peer support programs-do they work? Patient Educ. Couns. 2004;55:3-15. Cici, D. How is the Effect of Peer Support on Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Patients? A Systematic Review. 2018;eprints.ners.unair.ac.id. Clayton, C., Catrin, M. & Sakakibara, B. Enhancing Social Support Among People with Cardiovascular Disease: A Systematic Scoping Review. Curr Cardiol Rep . 2019;21:123. https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11886-019-1216-7 Dale, J., Caramlau, I. O., Lindenmeyer, A., & Williams, S. M. Peer support telephone calls for improving health. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008;4:CD006903. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD006903.pub2 Dale, J. R., Williams, S. M., & Bowyer, V. What is the effect of peer support on diabetes outcomes in adults? A systematic review. Diabet Med. 2012;29:1361–77. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-5491.2012.03749.x Dunn, J., Steginga, S. K, Rosoman, N. & Millichap, D. A Review of Peer Support in the Context of Cancer. J Psychosoc Oncol. 2003;21:55-67. http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J077v21n02_04 Enriquez, M. C. & Vicki, S. Peers as Facilitators of Medication Adherence Interventions. J Prim Care Community Health . 2016; 7 :44-55. doi:10.1177/2150131915601794 Fisher, E. B., Boothroyd, R. I., Elstad, E. A., Hays, L., Henes, A., Maslow, G. R., & Velicer, C. Peer support of complex health behaviors in prevention and disease management with special reference to diabetes: Systematic reviews. Clin Diabetes Endocrinol. 2017;3:4. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40842-017-0042-3 Gatlin, T. K., Serafica, R. & Johnson, M. Systematic review of peer education intervention programmes among individuals with type 2 diabetes. J Clin Nurs. 2017;26:4212-22. https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jocn.13991 Hu, J., Wang, X., Guo, S., Chen, F., Wu, Y. Y., Ji, F. J., & Fang, X. Peer support interventions for breast cancer patients: a systematic review. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2019;174:325–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-018-5033-2 Kew, K. M., Carr, R., & Crossingham, I. Lay-led and peer support interventions for adolescents with asthma. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev . 2017;4:CD012331. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD012331.pub2 Kong, L. N., Hu, P., Zhao, Q. H., Yao, H. Y., & Chen, S. Z. Effect of peer support intervention on diabetes distress in people with type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Nurs. 2020;26:e12830. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ijn.12830 Krishnamoorthy, Y., Sakthivel, M., Sarveswaran, G., & Eliyas, S. K. Effectiveness of peer led intervention in improvement of clinical outcomes among diabetes mellitus and hypertension patients-A systematic review and meta-analysis. Prim Care Diabetes. 2019;13:158–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pcd.2018.11.007 Lee, M. K. & Suh, S. R. Effects of peer-led interventions for patients with cancer: a meta-analysis. Oncol Nurs Forum. 2018;45:217-36. https://dx.doi.org/10.1188/18.ONF.217-236 Levy, B. B., Luong, D., Perrier, L., Bayley, M. T., & Munce, S. Peer support interventions for individuals with acquired brain injury, cerebral palsy, and spina bifida: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res . 2019;19:288. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-019-4110-5 Macvean, M. L., White, V. M., & Sanson-Fisher, R. One-to-one volunteer support programs for people with cancer: a review of the literature. Patient Educ. Couns. 2008;70:10-24. McCaughan, E., Parahoo, K., Hueter, I., Northouse, L., & Bradbury, I. Online support groups for women with breast cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev . 2017;3:CD011652. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD011652.pub2 Jackson, A. M., Gregory, S., & McKinstry, B. Self-help groups for patients with coronary heart disease as a resource for rehabilitation and secondary prevention-what is the evidence? Heart Lung. 2009;38:192–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrtlng.2009.01.009 Merianos, A. L., King, K. A., Vidourek, R. A., & Nabors, L. A. Mentoring and peer-led interventions to improve quality of life outcomes among adolescents with chronic illnesses. Appl Res Qual Life. 2016;11:1009–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-015-9415-x Parry, M., & Watt-Watson, J. Peer support intervention trials for individuals with heart disease: a systematic review. Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2010;9:57–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejcnurse.2009.10.002 Qi, L., Liu, Q., Qi, X., Wu, N., Tang, W., & Xiong, H. Effectiveness of peer support for improving glycaemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. BMC Public Health. 2015;15:471. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-015-1798-y Small, N., Blickem, C., Blakeman, T., Panagioti, M., Chew-Graham, C. A., & Bower, P. Telephone based self-management support by 'lay health workers' and 'peer support workers' to prevent and manage vascular diseases: A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Health Serv Res . 2013;13:533. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-13-533 Tang, T. S., Ayala, G. X., Cherrington, A., Rana, G. A review of volunteer-based peer support interventions in diabetes. Diabetes Spectr. 2011;24:85-98. http://dx.doi.org/10.2337/diaspect.24.2.85 Walshe, C. & Roberts, D. Peer support for people with advanced cancer: a systematically constructed scoping review of quantitative and qualitative evidence. Curr Opin Support Palliat Care . 2018;12:308-22. https://dx.doi.org/10.1097/SPC.0000000000000370 Higgins, J. P. T., Green, S. (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. 2011;Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration. www.cochrane-handbook.org . Tajfel, H. The achievement of inter-group differentiation. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Differentiation Between Social Groups 1978;77–100. London: Academic Press. Festinger, L. A theory of social comparison processes. Hum Relat . 1954;7:117-40. Prince, M., Patel, V., Saxena, S., Maj, M., Maselko, J., Phillips, M. R., & Rahman, A. No health without mental health. Lancet, 2007;370:859–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61238-0 Leamy, M., Bird, V., Le Boutillier, C., Williams, J., & Slade, M. Conceptual framework for personal recovery in mental health: Systematic review and narrative synthesis. The Br J Psychiatry. 2011; 199 (6):445–52. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.bp.110.083733 Gopalan, G., Lee, S. J., Harris, R., Acri, M. C., & Munson, M. R. Utilization of peers in services for youth with emotional and behavioral challenges: A scoping review. J. Adolesc. 2017;55:88–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2016.12.011 Table Due to technical limitations, table 5 is only available as a download in the Supplemental Files section. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Supplementary Files REPSAdditionalfile1PRISMAchecklist.docx REPSAdditionalfile2Medlinesearchterms.docx REPSAdditionalfile3ReasonsForFulltextExclusions.docx REPSAdditionalfile4SupplementaryDataAbstraction.docx REPSAdditionalfile5Training.docx REPSTable5RoBv1.docx Table 5. Risk of bias (AMSTAR II) Cite Share Download PDF Status: Published Journal Publication published 31 Mar, 2022 Read the published version in BMC Health Services Research → Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Major revision 13 Dec, 2021 Reviews received at journal 08 Dec, 2021 Reviewers agreed at journal 18 Nov, 2021 Reviewers invited by journal 18 Nov, 2021 Editor assigned by journal 18 Nov, 2021 Editor invited by journal 10 Oct, 2021 Submission checks completed at journal 10 Oct, 2021 First submitted to journal 15 Sep, 2021 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-908557","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":56068616,"identity":"3cff6faa-e2ed-4f30-b83f-6f0dc9c9398d","order_by":0,"name":"Dean M. Thompson","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham","correspondingAuthor":true,"submittingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Dean","middleName":"M.","lastName":"Thompson","suffix":""},{"id":56068617,"identity":"9789ebb4-827b-4bcd-ade4-79d5d6547979","order_by":1,"name":"Lesley Booth","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Bowel Research UK","correspondingAuthor":false,"submittingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Lesley","middleName":"","lastName":"Booth","suffix":""},{"id":56068618,"identity":"68859a15-dd3e-4c75-9f1e-99b8c4d7d233","order_by":2,"name":"Jonathan Mathers","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham","correspondingAuthor":false,"submittingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Jonathan","middleName":"","lastName":"Mathers","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2021-09-15 17:14:04","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-908557/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-908557/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[{"content":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-022-07816-7","type":"published","date":"2022-03-31T18:52:29+00:00"}],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":14449094,"identity":"7ea4878f-4c0e-45f7-8a28-fd4e52ef45f0","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2021-10-12 14:42:59","extension":"jpg","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":286209,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"Flow diagram of study selection","description":"","filename":"1.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-908557/v1/688c799bf749d7fafcf2a9b5.jpg"},{"id":14449855,"identity":"a8484f00-3660-4960-badd-a689d0cf6fbb","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2021-10-12 14:45:59","extension":"jpg","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":319169,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"Peer support primary research study designs","description":"","filename":"2.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-908557/v1/f57fe456ca19325366027881.jpg"},{"id":14449854,"identity":"376474de-7db7-4394-9bac-114b34729000","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2021-10-12 14:45:59","extension":"jpg","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":539905,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"Peer support primary research settings ","description":"","filename":"3.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-908557/v1/a6b94ff2a9b65cae68d0f29d.jpg"},{"id":19835522,"identity":"c92d08bc-7cc3-4b5a-a980-48e080755f33","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2022-03-31 18:52:32","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":667677,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-908557/v1/f0c6f93b-3d90-4b94-9b6e-42cc8ffeda24.pdf"},{"id":14449089,"identity":"c60c111a-d4b8-4b29-94e3-224991c8f189","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2021-10-12 14:42:59","extension":"docx","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":32576,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"REPSAdditionalfile1PRISMAchecklist.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-908557/v1/78addecae42b4aa040fe74ec.docx"},{"id":14449095,"identity":"b9032b41-0f96-48e0-a7a5-2f43de66b32d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2021-10-12 14:42:59","extension":"docx","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":17312,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"REPSAdditionalfile2Medlinesearchterms.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-908557/v1/d160057d75ee808ffc6464b7.docx"},{"id":14449097,"identity":"f9cca1cd-94c7-4dd0-b127-27b19542c1f7","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2021-10-12 14:42:59","extension":"docx","order_by":3,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":47486,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"REPSAdditionalfile3ReasonsForFulltextExclusions.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-908557/v1/e66075e58549c34c1525d4be.docx"},{"id":14449096,"identity":"e91c20c4-c830-475a-bf47-ef84790e8651","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2021-10-12 14:42:59","extension":"docx","order_by":4,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":57610,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"REPSAdditionalfile4SupplementaryDataAbstraction.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-908557/v1/05cfef4ac2010ab870229ee8.docx"},{"id":14449091,"identity":"55259167-9398-4a6f-bcd8-6077c9b3cbd5","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2021-10-12 14:42:59","extension":"docx","order_by":5,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":17474,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"REPSAdditionalfile5Training.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-908557/v1/91dd437ba90615b226f22b9f.docx"},{"id":14449093,"identity":"fd3013f9-04db-42b0-94ad-609efded235b","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2021-10-12 14:42:59","extension":"docx","order_by":6,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":43040,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"Table 5. Risk of bias (AMSTAR II)","description":"","filename":"REPSTable5RoBv1.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-908557/v1/5dbe0e1b523e299697887c58.docx"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"\u003cp\u003ePeer Support for People with Chronic Conditions: A Systematic Review of Reviews\u003c/p\u003e","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eChronic conditions are diseases or illnesses, which typically persist for 12 months or more, resulting in functional impairments requiring health or social care intervention [1-2]. These include, though are not limited to cardiovascular disease, respiratory disease, cancer and diabetes. Global premature avertable mortality across 43 chronic conditions is estimated at 9,008 years of life lost per 100,000 population [3], and the prevalence of chronic conditions and multimorbidity is increasing in the 21st century [4]. Chronic conditions, for example diabetes, affects labour market participation with greater absence, unemployment, early retirement and disability pension [5], with total health care expenditure estimated at $727 billion [6]. Approximately 12-18% of NHS expenditure is directed towards chronic conditions associated with poor mental health [7]. People with chronic conditions experience lower quality of life [8], and greater economic hardship and poverty [9]. A sense of isolation, alienation and loneliness are common to people with chronic conditions [10], with multiple co-occurring chronic conditions predicting an increased risk of loneliness [11]. Loneliness is associated with a poorer course of disease progression and predicts treatment outcomes [12-13].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eProgress in addressing chronic conditions has been inconsistent, with government policy insufficient to scale back the epidemic of disease [14]. In the US, people with chronic conditions without health insurance are less likely than those with health insurance to visit a healthcare professional [15], and the burden of disease is greatest in low- and middle-income countries where health and social care provision is scarce [16]. The World Health Organization (WHO) global action plan on noncommunicable disease relies on the overarching principle of empowerment of people and communities through participation in grass-roots organisations and the provision of tools to enable self-management [17]. People with chronic conditions spend as much as 2 hours per day on self-management of their health [18]. Much of this effort is informally supported by family who may lack experiential knowledge to offer holistic support while also being at heightened risk of experiencing emotional, social, physical and financial burden themselves [19-21]. Formal peer support interventions represent one potential solution to empower people to manage their own health, while reducing burden on informal carers and healthcare systems. Peer support involves people with lived experience of a condition helping others to manage the same condition, potentially offering a sense of connectedness and purpose, and experiential knowledge to manage disease. The introduction of formal peer support interventions such as the Stanford Chronic Disease Self-Management Program (CDSMP) and the Expert Patient Programme (EPP) offers potential for economies of scale and cost savings for healthcare services [22-24]. Major chronic conditions share common modifiable risk factors including unhealthy diet, physical inactivity, tobacco use, and harmful alcohol use, which feed into intermediate risk factors including raised blood pressure aside blood glucose, abnormal blood lipids and obesity. Yet most reviews of peer support focus on one chronic condition in isolation, and there are few reviews on peer support that cut across chronic conditions. Those that do are limited to online peer support [25-26], peer support specifically delivered in rural areas and other hard to reach populations [27-28], peer support for adolescent populations [29], peer support focused on chronic pain only [30], and meta-ethnography of qualitative research focused on self-reported experience of peer support [10].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIt is unclear what outcomes are important across the spectrum of chronic conditions, what works and for whom. These uncertainties impede healthcare services and charitable organisations from developing, implementing and evaluating peer support interventions. As the WHO 2013-2020 global action plan draws to an end with limited progress in preventing and controlling noncommunicable disease, a systematic review of reviews on peer support summarising and comparing conclusions across chronic conditions is timely.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe aims of this review of peer support in chronic conditions were to (1) describe peer support intervention components, (2) identify the outcome domains that have been used to evaluate peer support, (3) summarise evidence of effectiveness, and (4) identify mechanisms of effect that have been proposed for peer support interventions.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Methods","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis review was written in accordance with PRISMA guidance (see Supplementary Material 1 for the PRISMA checklist).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e\u003cem\u003eProtocol registration\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA systematic review of reviews protocol was written with reference to PRISMA guidelines [31], and registered on PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews) on 25 September 2019: CRD42019127906.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e\u003cem\u003eEligibility criteria\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eStudy eligibility criteria were developed using the PICOS (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, and Study design) framework. We included adults and children with one or more chronic condition, defined as a disease or illness, which typically persists for 12 months or more, resulting in functional impairments requiring health or social care intervention [1-2]. We included any peer support intervention, defined here as any formal support provided and received by people with a shared experience of having a chronic condition. \u0026lsquo;Formal\u0026rsquo; peer support refers to interventions arranged by organisations rather than spontaneous peer support between individuals or groups in their day-to-day environment. No reviews were excluded on the basis of outcomes, comparators or control conditions. Any type of review listed in Grant and Booth\u0026apos;s (2009) typology of reviews were included [32]. We excluded reviews where peer support interventions were not the primary focus of the review or where the intervention, outcome domain, effectiveness and mechanism data for peer support interventions could not be delineated from other types of interventions. Reviews that combined eligible and ineligible types of \u0026lsquo;peers\u0026rsquo; were included if the intervention, outcome domain, effectiveness or mechanism data could be delineated by definition of \u0026lsquo;peer\u0026rsquo;.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e\u003cem\u003eInformation sources\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSix data sources were used: (1) electronic bibliographic databases (n=9) were searched on 30\u003csup\u003eth\u003c/sup\u003e September 2019 and updated on 30\u003csup\u003eth\u003c/sup\u003e July 2020, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Google Scholar, and ProQuest Dissertations \u0026amp; Theses Global; (2) PROSPERO was searched for ongoing systematic reviews and corresponding authors contacted for unpublished manuscripts; (3) one website was hand-searched (http://peersforprogress.org/); (4) forward citation tracking of included publications via Scopus, (5) backward citation tracking of included publications by hand-searching reference lists was performed; and (6) a preliminary list of included publications was sent to experts (n=53; authors of included reviews) requesting additional eligible publications.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e\u003cem\u003eSearch\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe search strategy combined terms for peer support with terms for chronic conditions. Peer support search terms were adapted from a published systematic review concerning peer support [33] and peer reviewed by an expert in literature search design. Terms for chronic conditions encompassed those conditions representing greater than 1% of global DALYs according to the World Health Organisation estimates (2018) [34], were specified in the search. The search strategy was tailored to each electronic bibliographic database and where available and possible used index terms in addition to free text terms (see Supplementary Material 2 for the search strategy used for MEDLINE).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e\u003cem\u003eStudy selection\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCitations were exported into Clarivate Analytics\u0026rsquo; EndNote X9 software [35], and duplicates were removed by using the \u0026lsquo;find duplicate\u0026rsquo; function and manually hand-searching the list of publications. DT screened the title and abstract of each identified publication against the inclusion criteria. A randomly selected sample of 10% of title and abstracts were independently assessed by CP. The full text of each publication was screened by DT. A randomly selected sample of 10% of full texts were independently assessed by JM.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e\u003cem\u003eData items\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFor each publication, we extracted data on: (1) review information including the type of review, review aims, definition of peer support used in the reviews, review eligibility criteria, primary research design, primary research comparators, date of searches and review risk of bias appraisal tool and appraisal findings; (2) setting of primary research; (3) participants of primary research, including demographic and clinical characteristics; (4) the peer support programmes used in primary research (adapted from [36-37]; (5) outcome measurement domains used in primary research; (6) a narrative summary of reviews findings on effectiveness; and (7) theories and mechanisms of effect reported in the findings of included publications.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDT and JM independently piloted the data extraction table with a sample of 5 publications. DT and JM discussed their data extraction. Discrepancies were identified and resolved through discussion and the data extraction table instructions were refined.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e\u003cem\u003eRisk of bias in individual reviews\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIncluded reviews underwent critical appraisal using AMSTAR 2 [37]. AMSTAR 2 is a 16-item measurement tool to assess systematic reviews, though was applied to other types of reviews to enable a best evidence synthesis. DT assessed each included review against each of the 16 items. A randomly selected sample of 10% of included reviews were independently assessed by JM. Each review was organised into AMSTAR 2 categories including critically low, low, moderate, and high overall confidence in the results of the review [38].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e\u003cem\u003eSynthesis of results\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA 3-stage narrative synthesis was conducted based on Popay and colleagues\u0026rsquo; (2006) guidance [39]. Stage 1 involved developing a preliminary synthesis. Intervention components, outcome domains, and mechanisms of effect in peer support interventions were tabulated and an initial framework was developed using simple content analysis to group related data [40]. Vote counting was performed to determine the number of reviews identifying each intervention component, outcome domain, and mechanism. The identified components, outcomes, and mechanisms were iteratively grouped from the bottom-up using the extracted data. The effectiveness of the peer support interventions was tabulated for the outcome domains most frequently reported by the included reviews. Pooled effect sizes from the included reviews were reported here where available. Where these were not available, we performed vote counting on the number primary studies reporting significant between-groups findings where available, and significant within-group differences where no other data were available. Stage 2 involved exploring relationships between studies. Effectiveness data and mechanisms of effect are presented according to chronic condition. Stage 3 involved assessing the robustness of the synthesis. A best evidence synthesis of intervention components, outcome domains, effectiveness, and mechanisms of effect in high quality reviews (based on AMSTAR2) was planned.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003ch2\u003e\u003cem\u003eStudy selection\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe search identified 6222 unique publications (Figure 1). Of the 215 screened full-texts, 184 were excluded (see Supplementary Material 3 for list of and reasons for excluding each publication from electronic bibliographic databases). Thirty-one publications were eligible for inclusion [10, 25, 27, 36-37, 41-66].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e\u003cem\u003eDeveloping a preliminary synthesis and exploring relationships between studies\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e\u003cem\u003eStudy characteristics\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eReported review types include systematic reviews (n=14), literature reviews (n=6), reviews including meta-analysis (n=6), scoping reviews (n=3), and qualitative evidence syntheses (n=2). The primary research designs reported in the reviews were organised into 4 tiers (Figure 2), including Randomised control designs (number of reviews including this design=26), Non-randomised comparative designs (n=13), Single group observational studies (n=12), and Qualitative studies (n=5). Randomised controlled designs included RCTs (n=26), and CRTs (n=4; see Supplementary Material 4 for study datasets). Non-randomised comparative designs included non-randomised comparative studies (n=6), quasi-experimental design (n=3), cross-sectional studies (n=3), a survey with comparison group (n=1), and a case comparison study (n=1). Single group observational studies included pre-post studies (n=7), descriptive studies (n=6), and surveys without comparison group (n=2). Qualitative studies included unspecified qualitative research (n=3), interviews (n=2), focus groups (n=1), and participant observation (n=1). Some reviews reported primary research designs which could not be categorised or did not appear to be evaluative including feasibility or pilot studies (n=2), an experimental study (n=1), a case study (n=1), and a needs assessment (n=1).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe conditions reviewed included cancer (n=9), diabetes (n=7), cardiovascular disease (n=4), acquired brain injury, cerebral palsy, and spina bifida (n=1), asthma (n=1), kidney disease (n=1), HIV (n=1), and somatic illness (n=1). Six reviews included any chronic condition. The reviews included primary research across 26 countries or semi-autonomous regions (Figure 3). Reviews reported on primary research based in USA (n=24), Australia (n=14), Canada (n=12), the UK (n=11), Republic of Ireland (n=6), Netherlands (n=4), Argentina (n=3), China, Germany, Mozambique, South Korea, Sweden, Uganda, and Vietnam (n=2); Austria, Botswana, Denmark, Hong Kong, Iran, Israel, Jordan, Mali, Philippines, South Africa, Spain, and Taiwan (n=1). Reviews reported on primary research based in community settings (n=8), general hospitals (n=5), outpatient clinics (n=4), HIV/AIDS clinics (n=3), school or other educational settings (n=3), US Veterans Affairs centres (n=3), camps (n=2), primary care settings (n=2), church (n=1), haemodialysis centre (n=1), HIV/AIDS clinical trials unit (n=1), infectious disease hospital unit (n=1), physiotherapy department (n=1), public health clinic (n=1), seniors\u0026rsquo; centre (n=1), stroke rehabilitation centre (n=1), University clinic (n=1), workplace (n=1).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e\u003cem\u003ePeer support intervention description\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eReviews reported on peer support delivered in groups (n=21) and one-to-one (n=17), by telephone (n=21), face-to-face (n=16), and online (n=13). Descriptions of\u0026nbsp;peer support intervention components most frequently comprised education (n=13), self-management techniques (n=9), discussion (n=7), reciprocal support (n=7), sharing personal experiences, and unspecified social support (n=6). Other specific forms of social support were numerous, wide ranging, and are listed in full in\u0026nbsp;Table 1. Peers were consistently defined by their role in providing or exchanging support between people with similar experiences or circumstances, though only seven specified that this similarity extends to first-hand experience of living with a shared chronic condition, and three reviews did not give a definition of what constitutes peer support. The duration of peer support interventions ranged from a single session to 2 years. Most reviews reported on interventions with one contact per week, with a range of daily (for up to 1 week) to 3- and 12-monthly follow-ups.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePeer training content and methods were organised into 11 categories including delivery methods, counselling skills, communication skills, condition and treatment information and adherence, meta-competency and safety, social skills and story sharing, intervention and pedagogical theory, culture and religion, physical training techniques, intervention facilitation skills, and availability of community resources. Training most frequently involved teaching communication skills (n=7), condition and treatment information (n=5; see\u0026nbsp;Supplementary Material\u0026nbsp;5 for training description table). Five reviews reported whether primary research peer support included the use of an intervention manual.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEleven reviews reported on the supervision of peer support. Three reviews simply indicated whether supervision was a component of the primary research intervention, and 2 reviews indicated whether supervision was professionally delivered. Six reviews described supervision in more detail including supervision of the first session only (n=1), weekly supervision from a psychologist, nurse, and community outreach coordinator (n=1), a study coordinator called participants to identify problems, including problems with the peer support relationship at week 3 of the intervention (n=1), an endocrinologist, an exercise physiologist and an exercise health psychologist were available to answer questions throughout the study period (n=1), psychologist supervision (n=1), nurse supervision (n=1), facilitators were present to ensure fidelity to the research protocol (n=1), children and young people overseen by adults (n=1).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFour reviews reported on screening practices to recruit peer support workers based on success (e.g. reduction in severity of condition or improved self-management) from past treatment (n=1), previous experience facilitating a group, ability to motivate, good listening and problem-solving skills (n=1), knowledge of diabetes and an interest in helping people and effective communication patterns (n=1), a competency test involving role play (n=1), severity of chronic condition (n=1); from the same community (n=1), demonstration of leadership qualities (n=1), ability to engage in conversation (n=1), give information clearly (n=1), share experiences and display appropriate listening skills (n=1). Twelve reviews reported on peer matching including matching by age (n=5), ethnicity (n=2), cultural similarities (n=2), type of cancer (n=2), life factors (n=1), gender (n=1), primary language (n=1), men who have sex with men (n=1), chronic pain (n=1), injection drug use (n=1), ex-smoker status (n=1).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"text-align: center;\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"text-align: center;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;Intervention description table\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv align=\"center\"\u003e\n \u003ctable border=\"1\" cellpadding=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" width=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" width=\"74.43298969072166%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIntervention components\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" width=\"25.567010309278352%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNumber of reviews\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" width=\"74.43298969072166%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEducation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" width=\"25.567010309278352%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e13 (42%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" width=\"74.43298969072166%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSelf-management\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" width=\"25.567010309278352%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9 (29%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" width=\"74.43298969072166%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDiscussion\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" width=\"25.567010309278352%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7 (23%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" width=\"74.43298969072166%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eReciprocally giving support to others\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" width=\"25.567010309278352%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7 (23%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" width=\"74.43298969072166%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSharing personal experiences\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" width=\"25.567010309278352%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6 (19%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" width=\"74.43298969072166%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUnspecified social support\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" width=\"25.567010309278352%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6 (19%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" width=\"74.43298969072166%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMedications advice/ adherence\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" width=\"25.567010309278352%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5 (16%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" width=\"74.43298969072166%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEmotional support\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" width=\"25.567010309278352%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4 (13%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" width=\"74.43298969072166%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eActivity scheduling/ planning leisure activities\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" width=\"25.567010309278352%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3 (10%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" width=\"74.43298969072166%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAddressing unspecified psychosocial issues\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" width=\"25.567010309278352%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3 (10%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" width=\"74.43298969072166%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCognitive techniques\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" width=\"25.567010309278352%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3 (10%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" width=\"74.43298969072166%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCommunity outreach\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" width=\"25.567010309278352%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3 (10%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" width=\"74.43298969072166%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEncouragement\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" width=\"25.567010309278352%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3 (10%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" width=\"74.43298969072166%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGoal setting\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" width=\"25.567010309278352%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3 (10%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" width=\"74.43298969072166%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMentoring\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" width=\"25.567010309278352%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3 (10%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" width=\"74.43298969072166%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eModelled recovery\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" width=\"25.567010309278352%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3 (10%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" width=\"74.43298969072166%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAddressing physical health concerns\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" width=\"25.567010309278352%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2 (6%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" width=\"74.43298969072166%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCounselling\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" width=\"25.567010309278352%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2 (6%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" width=\"74.43298969072166%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eExercise\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" width=\"25.567010309278352%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2 (6%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" width=\"74.43298969072166%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMonitoring condition/ symptoms\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" width=\"25.567010309278352%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2 (6%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" width=\"74.43298969072166%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePsychoeducation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" width=\"25.567010309278352%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2 (6%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" width=\"74.43298969072166%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStrategic thinking\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" width=\"25.567010309278352%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2 (6%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" width=\"74.43298969072166%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTalking Circles (native American cultural discussion facilitation)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" width=\"25.567010309278352%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2 (6%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" width=\"74.43298969072166%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUnspecified psychological support\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" width=\"25.567010309278352%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2 (6%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" width=\"74.43298969072166%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAnswered patient questions\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" width=\"25.567010309278352%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1 (3%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" width=\"74.43298969072166%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBullying support\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" width=\"25.567010309278352%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1 (3%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" width=\"74.43298969072166%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCoping skills\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" width=\"25.567010309278352%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1 (3%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" width=\"74.43298969072166%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDecision making\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" width=\"25.567010309278352%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1 (3%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" width=\"74.43298969072166%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDeveloping relationships\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" width=\"25.567010309278352%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1 (3%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" width=\"74.43298969072166%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEmphasise personal achievement\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" width=\"25.567010309278352%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1 (3%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" width=\"74.43298969072166%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEncouraging contact with clinicians\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" width=\"25.567010309278352%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1 (3%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" width=\"74.43298969072166%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLifestyle change exercises\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" width=\"25.567010309278352%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1 (3%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" width=\"74.43298969072166%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLow-level advice\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" width=\"25.567010309278352%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1 (3%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" width=\"74.43298969072166%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLead group activities\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" width=\"25.567010309278352%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1 (3%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" width=\"74.43298969072166%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMindfulness\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" width=\"25.567010309278352%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1 (3%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" width=\"74.43298969072166%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMotivational support\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" width=\"25.567010309278352%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1 (3%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" width=\"74.43298969072166%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNeeds assessment\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" width=\"25.567010309278352%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1 (3%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" width=\"74.43298969072166%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOutings for social integration and networking\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" width=\"25.567010309278352%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1 (3%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" width=\"74.43298969072166%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eProblem-solving\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" width=\"25.567010309278352%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1 (3%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" width=\"74.43298969072166%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRecognising trauma\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" width=\"25.567010309278352%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1 (3%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" width=\"74.43298969072166%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRelaxation techniques\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" width=\"25.567010309278352%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1 (3%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" width=\"74.43298969072166%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSmoking cessation counselling\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" width=\"25.567010309278352%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1 (3%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" width=\"74.43298969072166%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUnspecified behavioural change\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" width=\"25.567010309278352%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1 (3%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" width=\"74.43298969072166%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUnspecified practical support\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" width=\"25.567010309278352%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1 (3%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" width=\"74.43298969072166%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWays of taking action\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" width=\"25.567010309278352%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1 (3%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e\u003cem\u003eOutcome domains\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFifty-five outcome domains were identified and organised across 15 categories (Table 2). Mental health and psychosocial processes and adjustment were the most frequently reported outcome categories. Quality of life (n=14), self-efficacy (n=14), clinical surrogates (n=12), depression (n=11), distress (n=11), and health knowledge (n=9) were the most frequently analysed outcome domains in reviews. Psychosocial process and adjustment was the most variably measured category, spanning 21 outcome domains.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"text-align: center;\"\u003eTable 2\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"text-align: center;\"\u003eOutcome domains identified in reviews\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv align=\"center\"\u003e\n \u003ctable border=\"1\" cellpadding=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" width=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"64.62395543175488%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDomains\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"35.37604456824513%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNumber of reviews\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"64.62395543175488%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMental health\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"35.37604456824513%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e18 (58%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"64.62395543175488%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDepression\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"35.37604456824513%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11 (35%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"64.62395543175488%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDistress\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"35.37604456824513%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11 (35%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"64.62395543175488%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAnxiety\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"35.37604456824513%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7 (23%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"64.62395543175488%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMental health\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"35.37604456824513%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5 (16%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"64.62395543175488%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePost-traumatic stress\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"35.37604456824513%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2 (6%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"64.62395543175488%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWellbeing\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"35.37604456824513%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2 (6%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"64.62395543175488%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSuicidal ideation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"35.37604456824513%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1 (3%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"64.62395543175488%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePsychosocial processes \u0026amp; adjustment\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"35.37604456824513%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e16 (52%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"64.62395543175488%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSelf-efficacy/ confidence\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"35.37604456824513%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e14 (45%)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"64.62395543175488%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOptimism/ Pessimism/ Hope\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"35.37604456824513%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4 (13%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"64.62395543175488%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCoping\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"35.37604456824513%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3 (10%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"64.62395543175488%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEmpowerment\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"35.37604456824513%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3 (10%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"64.62395543175488%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSocial coping\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"35.37604456824513%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3 (10%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"64.62395543175488%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAdjustment\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"35.37604456824513%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2 (6%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"64.62395543175488%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePsychosexual functioning\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"35.37604456824513%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2 (6%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"64.62395543175488%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAltruism\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"35.37604456824513%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1 (3%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"64.62395543175488%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCatharsis\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"35.37604456824513%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1 (3%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"64.62395543175488%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eComfort with clinician\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"35.37604456824513%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1 (3%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"64.62395543175488%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIllness uncertainty\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"35.37604456824513%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1 (3%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"64.62395543175488%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMotivation to volunteer\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"35.37604456824513%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1 (3%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"64.62395543175488%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNegative affect\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"35.37604456824513%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1 (3%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"64.62395543175488%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePerceived threat of condition\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"35.37604456824513%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1 (3%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"64.62395543175488%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePositive upward comparison\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"35.37604456824513%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1 (3%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"64.62395543175488%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePost-traumatic growth\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"35.37604456824513%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1 (3%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"64.62395543175488%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSelf-understanding\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"35.37604456824513%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1 (3%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"64.62395543175488%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSense of coherence\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"35.37604456824513%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1 (3%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"64.62395543175488%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSpirituality\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"35.37604456824513%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1 (3%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"64.62395543175488%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStigma\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"35.37604456824513%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1 (3%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"64.62395543175488%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSuppression of affect\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"35.37604456824513%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1 (3%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"64.62395543175488%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eQuality of life\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"35.37604456824513%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14 (45%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"64.62395543175488%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eClinical surrogate*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"35.37604456824513%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12 (39%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"64.62395543175488%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePhysical health \u0026amp; function\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"35.37604456824513%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12 (39%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"64.62395543175488%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFunctional status\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"35.37604456824513%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5 (16%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"64.62395543175488%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHealth status\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"35.37604456824513%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4 (13%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"64.62395543175488%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePhysical health\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"35.37604456824513%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4 (13%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"64.62395543175488%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAdverse events\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"35.37604456824513%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1 (3%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"64.62395543175488%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSocial integration \u0026amp; connectedness\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"35.37604456824513%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12 (39%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"64.62395543175488%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSocial support\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"35.37604456824513%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8 (26%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"64.62395543175488%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eConnectedness/ social network\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"35.37604456824513%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3 (10%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"64.62395543175488%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSocial isolation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"35.37604456824513%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3 (10%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"64.62395543175488%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAcculturation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"35.37604456824513%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1 (3%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"64.62395543175488%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCommunity integration\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"35.37604456824513%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1 (3%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"64.62395543175488%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eInterpersonal relationships\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"35.37604456824513%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1 (3%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"64.62395543175488%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHealth knowledge\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"35.37604456824513%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9 (29%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"64.62395543175488%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHealth care utilisation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"35.37604456824513%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9 (29%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"64.62395543175488%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHealth behaviour\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"35.37604456824513%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8 (26%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"64.62395543175488%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSelf-care\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"35.37604456824513%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8 (26%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"64.62395543175488%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTreatment adherence\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"35.37604456824513%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8 (26%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"64.62395543175488%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSymptom severity\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"35.37604456824513%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6 (19%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"64.62395543175488%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCondition symptom severity\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"35.37604456824513%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5 (16%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"64.62395543175488%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePain severity\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"35.37604456824513%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2 (6%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"64.62395543175488%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGeneral level of activity\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"35.37604456824513%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4 (13%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"64.62395543175488%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eQuality of communication with others\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"35.37604456824513%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3 (10%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"64.62395543175488%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMortality\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"35.37604456824513%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1 (3%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\"\u003e*Clinical surrogates: Blood glucose (Fasting blood glucose); Blood pressure (Diastolic blood pressure \u0026amp; Systolic blood pressure); CD4 cell count; Estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate (eGFR); Glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c); Lipid Levels/ Lipid Profile (High-density lipoproteins \u0026amp; Low-density lipoproteins); Prostate-specific antigen; Resting heart rate; Triglyceride; Urinalysis (Glycosuria, Microhematuria, or Proteinuria); Viral Load; Weight (Body fat, Waist circumference, or Body Mass Index)\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e\u003cem\u003eEffectiveness\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFor the most frequently identified outcome domains, the majority of reviews reported mostly statistically non-significant effects of peer support (Table 3). Though most reviews reported findings favouring peer support, Table 3 shows that these were rarely significant. Few reviews found a statistically significant effect favouring peer support in a majority of the primary research measuring quality of life (n=1/12), self-efficacy (n=3/14), clinical surrogates (n=1/8), depression (n=1/10), distress (n=2/11), and health knowledge (n=4/9). Three meta-analyses pooled data on clinical surrogates, indicating small to medium statistically significant differences in favour of peer support effect sizes\u0026nbsp;for HBA1c\u0026nbsp;[55, 64-65].\u0026nbsp;Effect sizes were small though not statistically significant for quality of life and depression [53, 59], and negligible and not statistically significant for distress [54].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"text-align: center;\"\u003eTable 3\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"text-align: center;\"\u003eEffect size (MD) of peer support interventions (or number of significant findings of primary studies)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellpadding=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eQuality of life\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSelf-efficacy\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eClinical surrogates\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDepression\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDistress\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHealth knowledge\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"7\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAcquired brain injury, cerebral palsy, and spina bifida\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLevy 2019\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2/5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"7\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAsthma\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eKew 2017\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003en=3, 0.40 (95% CI -0.02 to 0.81) favouring peer support\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"7\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCancer\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCampbell 2004\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0/5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0/1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDunn 2003\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0/1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0/1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0/1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e* 0/2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHoey 2008\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0/3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1/3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003cu\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1/3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0/3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0/8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMacvean 2008\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0/1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0/1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1/3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMcCaughan 2017\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003en=3,\u0026nbsp;-0.11 (95% CI -0.47 to 0.24) favouring peer support\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003en=5,\u0026nbsp;-0.37 (95% CI -0.75 to 0.00) favouring peer support\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0/1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMeyer 2015\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e* 2/2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0/1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0/4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e* 1/2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHu 2019\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e* 2/3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e* 2/3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1/6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e* 2/4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e* 2/3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"7\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCardiovascular disease\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eParry 2010\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0/1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e* 1/2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSmall 2013\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e* HBA1c n=4,\u0026nbsp;-0.26 (95% CI -0.41 to -0.11, I\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e = 47.6% favouring peer support; Blood pressure n=1, \u0026minus;0.25 (95% CI \u0026minus;0.45 to \u0026minus;0.05) favouring peer support\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"7\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eChronic disease\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEnriquez 2016\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0/2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e* HBA1c 1/2, Virologic failure/viral load 2/3, CD4 cell count 1/2, Blood pressure 1/1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e* 1/2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0/1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFisher 2017\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0/1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0/2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3/7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0/2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDale 2008\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0/2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0/1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"7\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eChronic kidney disease\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBennett 2018\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0/2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0/1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"7\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDiabetes\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCici 2018\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0/2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0/12\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0/2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0/2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDale 2012\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2/5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHBA1c 4/14, Blood pressure 2/5, Cholesterol 1/6,Weight/BMI/Body Fat 5/9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e* 2/3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGatlin 2017\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1/3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1/3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHBA1c 2/6, Blood pressure 2/5, \u0026nbsp;Lipid profiles 0/4, Weight/BMI/Waist circumference 1/7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0/1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e* 1/2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2/5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eKong 2020\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003en=10, -0.06 (95% CI -0.22 to 0.10) favouring peer support\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eKrishnamoorthy 2018\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e* HBA1c n=26,\u0026nbsp;\u0026minus;0.28 (95% CI \u0026minus;0.45 to \u0026minus;0.11) favouring peer support\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eQi 2015\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e* HBA1c n=13,\u0026nbsp;\u0026minus;0.57 (95% CI \u0026minus;0.78 to \u0026minus;0.36) favouring peer support\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTang 2011\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0/1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0/1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGlycaemic control 1/2, Lipid profile 0/1, Blood pressure 0/2, Weight/BMI 0/1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0/1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0/1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"7\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHIV\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBoucher 2020\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0/4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0/3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0/6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1/5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0/1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0/1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"7\" style=\"width: 99.8711%;\"\u003e* Effect size (CI 95%) favours intervention, or at least half of primary research studies in reviews demonstrates significant difference\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e\u003cem\u003eMechanisms\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTwenty-three mechanisms or theories were identified across 9 reviews (Table 4). Most mechanisms or theories were identified in two reviews that focused on theory and treatment experience [10, 42]. Most reviews did not aim to address intervention theory. Appraisal, emotional and informational social support (n=5), social cognitive theory (n=3), and social comparison theory (n=3) were the most frequently cited mechanisms or theories of effect in peer support interventions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"text-align: center;\"\u003eTable 4\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"text-align: center;\"\u003eMechanisms identified in reviews\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv align=\"center\"\u003e\n \u003ctable border=\"1\" cellpadding=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" width=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"13.901869158878505%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSocial cognitive theory\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIMB Theory\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUncertainty management theory\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAppraisal, emotional, informational support\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.8551401869158877%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIllness or Social identity theory\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eReadiness stage of wellness motivation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTheory of planned behaviour\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEmpowerment\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePeer leadership or advocacy\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSense of connection\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eExperiential knowledge\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFinding meaning\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIsolation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSharing\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHelping\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eReciprocity\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRole satisfaction\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEmotional entanglement\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSelf-determination \u0026amp; autonomy motivation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSocial comparison theory\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOrem\u0026rsquo;s self-care theory\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRodger\u0026rsquo;s person-centred approach\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCollective voice \u0026amp; mobilisation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"13.853317811408616%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"23\" valign=\"top\" width=\"86.14668218859138%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCancer\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"13.901869158878505%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDunn 2003\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.8551401869158877%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e✓\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"13.901869158878505%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLee 2018\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e✓\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.8551401869158877%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e✓\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"13.901869158878505%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMeyer 2015\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.8551401869158877%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e✓\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"13.901869158878505%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWalshe 2018\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e✓\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.8551401869158877%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e✓\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"13.853317811408616%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"23\" valign=\"top\" width=\"86.14668218859138%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eChronic disease\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"13.901869158878505%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEmbuldeniya \u0026lsquo;13\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.8551401869158877%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e✓\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e✓\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e✓\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e✓\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e✓\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e✓\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e✓\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e✓\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e✓\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"13.901869158878505%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEnriquez 2016\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e✓\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e✓\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.8551401869158877%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e✓\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e✓\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e✓\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"13.853317811408616%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"23\" valign=\"top\" width=\"86.14668218859138%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDiabetes\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"13.901869158878505%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eQi 2015\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e✓\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e✓\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.8551401869158877%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e✓\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e✓\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"13.853317811408616%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"23\" valign=\"top\" width=\"86.14668218859138%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHIV\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"13.901869158878505%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBoucher 2020\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e✓\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e✓\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e✓\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e✓\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.8551401869158877%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e✓\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e✓\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e✓\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e✓\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e✓\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"13.853317811408616%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"23\" valign=\"top\" width=\"86.14668218859138%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSomatic illness\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"13.901869158878505%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eKingod 2017\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e✓\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.8551401869158877%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e✓\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e✓\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"3.7383177570093458%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e✓\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"24\"\u003eIMB Theory (Information, motivation, and behavioural skills health behaviour model); Biopsychosocial ICF theoretical framework (Biopsychosocial International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health theoretical framework)\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e\u003cem\u003eAssessing the robustness of the synthesis\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOverall confidence in reviews were rated high in two Cochrane reviews [46, 53], low (n=5) and critically low (n=24). Most reviews were rated \u0026lsquo;critically low\u0026rsquo; due to 2 recurring critical weaknesses: absence of explicit reference to a protocol established prior to the conduct of the review (n=16), and the absence of reference to a list of excluded studies and justification for exclusions (n=18; Table 5). However, each of these reviews did not necessarily set out to be read as a comprehensive systematic review. Of the reviews that assessed risk of bias, most used the Cochrane risk of bias tool (n=13), and a further three referred to the EPOC-specific Cochrane risk of bias tool [67]. Reviews\u0026rsquo; risk of bias findings were rated favourably with low risk of bias and high confidence in the findings (n=5); equivocal or unclear (n=6); and rated unfavourably with high risk of bias and low confidence in the findings (n=8).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e\u003cem\u003eBest evidence synthesis\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDue to a lack of \u0026lsquo;high quality\u0026rsquo; comprehensive systematic reviews, this best evidence synthesis presents a descriptive summary of Dale and colleagues (2008) and Kew and colleagues (2017) only [46, 53]. Dale and colleagues reviewed across chronic conditions, though included some primary research involving peers without direct experience of a shared chronic conditions (i.e., people with shared spiritual beliefs). We abstracted only data concerning people with direct experience of a shared chronic condition (post myocardial infarction or with angina). Peer support included educational telephone-based interventions based in Australia and USA. Dale and colleagues measured health status, mental health, quality of life, self-efficacy, and behaviour change (i.e., diet). No differences were found between any physical health outcomes, mental health, quality of life or self-efficacy. Peer support telephone calls were associated with dietary change in one primary research study only.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKew and colleagues (2017) reviewed peer support for asthma [53]. Peer support comprised education, strategic thinking, discussion, and encouragement in the context of the Triple A programme that teaches older participants to educate and empower their peers based in Australia, Jordan, and USA. Kew and colleagues measured quality of life, severity of asthma (via exacerbations requiring a course of oral steroids, and asthma control), health care use, health behaviours (i.e., smoking), and adverse events. The asthma-related quality of life random-effects model was imprecise and showed no differences (MD 0.40, 95% confidence interval -0.02 to 0.81). Most other outcomes did not show an effect favouring peer support. One study found a reduction in adherence in peer support and comparator. Asthma control and nicotine dependence favoured peer support, though this finding was not statistically significant.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMeta‐analysis was prevented by heterogeneity between studies, weaknesses in blinding and incomplete reporting. Both reviews shared the conclusion that their findings should be interpreted with caution due to weaknesses in the underlying primary research literature, and that more high-quality clinical trials are indicated.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis systematic review of reviews indicates that peer support may be effective for people with chronic conditions. However, there are methodological weaknesses across the underlying research literature and there is a lack of consistent statistically significant effects of peer support across the included reviews. Therefore, at present it is not possible to draw definitive conclusions about effectiveness, although the potential for peer support interventions is apparent. \u0026nbsp;An obvious difficulty in drawing conclusions is the wide range of intervention components, modalities, and definitions of what constitutes a \u0026lsquo;peer\u0026rsquo; identified in this review. Peer support is a complex intervention. Several theories and mechanisms of effect were described in a minority of the reviews included in this study. Peer support was broadly conceptualised as a social intervention. According to \u003cem\u003eSocial identity theory\u003c/em\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003e,\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e group membership confers a sense of belonging that acts as a behavioural guide via a set of ingroup social norms [69]. Therefore, it is plausible that the success of peer support may partly depend on how group membership is defined by the recipient of peer support \u0026ndash; people with shared clinical characteristics, or people from the same neighbourhood with similar demographics characteristics. Similarly, \u003cem\u003esocial comparison theory\u003c/em\u003e posits that people use peer support to evaluate themselves in relation to others to validate their thoughts, emotions, and experiences, and make positive upward social comparisons to create a sense of hope in a process of recovery or self-management [69]. Understanding how such comparisons might diverge between peers matched on the basis of experiential knowledge of a condition and those with shared demographic factors or other circumstances could help to plan peer support programmes that mitigate the negative impact of less positive social comparisons. Embuldeniya and colleagues (2013) [10] review of mechanisms of peer support reinforces the\u0026nbsp;importance of\u0026nbsp;a shared condition contributing to the bonds formed between people in peer support, and helping others enabled peers to find meaning in their own chronic condition, suggesting that peer support may result in different outcomes depending on how \u0026lsquo;peerness\u0026rsquo; is defined. However, relatively few reviews and underpinning primary research explore how peer support works, nor answer specific questions about variation in effectiveness of different types of peers. As a consequence, the extent to which peer support can be optimized by targeting mechanisms of effect remains unclear. Mediation analysis of peer-matching in peer support would be one approach to investigate the importance of this variable, which would inform process measurement in clinical trials.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNo single outcome domain was measured across all primary research, suggesting a lack of consensus on what is essential to measure in peer support interventions. This study highlighted that it is common practice to measure clinical recovery in outcome measurement (symptom remission to \u0026lsquo;get back to normal\u0026rsquo;) alongside \u003cem\u003epsychosocial processes\u003c/em\u003e of personal recovery such as a sense of connectedness. However, some reviews solely focused on physical symptoms of chronic conditions [55, 63]. Most reviews of peer support synthesised clinical surrogates and mental health outcomes, acknowledging the co-occurrence of chronic physical conditions and mental health problems [70]. However, mental health problems are not simply a symptom of an underlying chronic health condition that can uniformly be addressed by taking away the chronic condition. If peer support does indeed work through creating a sense of connectedness and hope derived from upward social comparisons, it is important to evaluate these processes of personal recovery more consistently in future research [71]. As few as four studies measured a sense of hope and three measured connectedness. The inconsistency in outcome measurement highlighted by this study points toward a lack of consensus regarding what and how to measure when evaluating peer support interventions to enable comparisons in future evidence syntheses which may in turn inform commissioning of new peer support services. A core outcome set is a standardised minimum set of outcomes that should be measured in all clinical trials in an area of health or social care. Research to develop a core outcome set through Delphi consensus methodology would help the research community to bridge this gap.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eConfidence in the quality of the included reviews was mostly low or critically low when measured against AMSTAR 2. Most included reviews omitted explicit reference to a protocol established prior to the conduct of the review and a reference to a list of excluded studies with justification for exclusions. Furthermore, many of the included reviews did not assess risk of bias nor robustly conduct study selection and data abstraction in duplicate. Though the authors of the included reviews may not have set out to produce methodologically robust systematic reviews, some of the published reports made conclusive remarks about the effectiveness of peer support without critical appraisal of the primary research informing this view. Therefore, renewed efforts to review the peer support literature ought to be preceded by accessible protocols detailing a robust systematic approach to the literature to facilitate the commissioners\u0026rsquo; decision-making process in funding peer support services.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study presents peer support intervention components summarised in other reviews rather than lengthier descriptions of interventions in primary research. As a result, these data do not represent a complete and detailed catalogue of all published forms of peer support. Furthermore, due to the variation in outcomes measured, and inconsistent findings between them, it is not possible to conclude what works, for whom, and in what circumstances with these data. The value of understanding the mechanisms of effect in peer support has also been acknowledged in Gopalan and colleagues\u0026rsquo; (2017) scoping review of youth peer support for mental health problems [72]. Realist research would be well-suited to exploring these uncertainties to produce a programme theory that explores the mechanisms of effect and highlights the active ingredients to facilitate change.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe evidence base for peer support comprises a wide range of definitions, theories, and methods of peer support. Peers were variably defined as people sharing the same chronic condition, family and friends, community health workers and others in the community, some combination of the above, or not defined at all. This leads to two challenges. Firstly, by attempting to synthesise primary research that adopts different definitions of \u0026lsquo;peerness\u0026rsquo; and different theories and components of peer support interventions, evidence syntheses often struggle to compare apples and oranges. Secondly, attempts to pool data from heterogeneous interventions risks overlooking opportunities for learning between different paradigms of peer support across settings and conditions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis systematic review of reviews focused on peer support between people with a shared chronic condition. In doing so, this review compares a set of interventions that cohere around concepts of shared identity informed by direct lived experience of a chronic condition. However, this prevented any exploration of similarities and differences between different conceptualisations of \u0026lsquo;peerness\u0026rsquo;. As other gaps in the literature recommended in this discussion are addressed, and update to this review using a meta-narrative design would help to unpick such a heterogeneous topic by comparing and contrasting the different ways in which clinical services and academics have developed and evaluated peer support for people across a broad spectrum of chronic conditions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis review presents a range of components of peer support interventions that may be of interest to clinicians when developing new peer support programmes. However, there is a lack of high-quality primary research underpinning few robust systematic reviews, which limits understanding of what components of peer support to use and with whom. Until this changes, the implementation of peer support in different clinical settings may benefit from participatory action research so that services may reflect patient preference at a local level. Furthermore, for those clinical services intending to implement novel peer support interventions, this review provides a matrix of mechanisms of effect that may guide theory-driven intervention development.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThough four major chronic conditions (cancer, diabetes, cardiovascular, and chronic respiratory disease) are well-represented in reviews focusing exclusively on peer support between people with a chronic condition, there was a marked absence of reviews on many other prevalent chronic conditions with different pathologies and lived experience. This review highlights a window of opportunity to scope the literature to determine whether there is a need for further primary research or systematic reviews of peer support for chronic conditions absent from this review.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Abbreviations","content":"\u003cp\u003eAMSTAR: A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews; CDSMP: Chronic Disease Self-Management Program; EPP: Expert Patient Programme; MD: Mean difference; PICOS: Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, and Study design; PROSPERO: International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews; WHO: World Health Organization\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003ch2\u003e\u003cem\u003eEthics approval and consent to participate\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot applicable.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e\u003cem\u003eConsent for publication\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot applicable.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e\u003cem\u003eAvailability of data and materials\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIncluded study data are included in this report\u0026rsquo;s supplementary information files.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e\u003cem\u003eCompeting interests\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors declare that they have no competing interests.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eFunding\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis work was part supported by a grant from Bowel Research UK.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e\u003cem\u003eAuthors\u0026rsquo; Contributions\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDT conceived the research with JM and LB, and each contributed to the review protocol. DT and JM carried out identification and eligibility screening of studies. DT drafted the initial manuscript. Each author revised the manuscript for important intellectual content and gave approval of the final version.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e\u003cem\u003eAcknowledgements\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe would like to thank Dr David Moore who kindly peer-reviewed the search strategy and search terms that form the basis of this work.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGoodman, R. A., Posner, S. F., Huang, E. S., Parekh, A. K., \u0026amp; Koh, H. K. Defining and measuring chronic conditions: imperatives for research, policy, program, and practice. Prev Chronic Dis\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e 2013;10:e66. doi:10.5888/pcd10.120239\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHwang, W., Weller, W., Ireys, H., \u0026amp; Anderson, G. Out-Of-Pocket Medical Spending For Care Of Chronic Conditions. Health Aff. 2001;20:267-78. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.20.6.267\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMartinez R, Lloyd-Sherlock P, Soliz P, et al. Trends in premature avertable mortality from non-communicable diseases for 195 countries and territories, 1990\u0026ndash;2017: A population-based study. Lancet Glob\u0026nbsp;Health. 2020;8:e511\u0026ndash;23.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eVan Oostrom, S. H., Gijsen, R., Stirbu, I., Korevaar, J. C., Schellevis, F. G., Picavet, H. S. J., \u0026amp; Hoeymans, N. Time Trends in Prevalence of Chronic Diseases and Multimorbidity Not Only due to Aging: Data from General Practices and Health Surveys. PLoS One. 2016;11:e0160264. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0160264\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePedron, S., Emmert-Fees, K., Laxy, M., \u0026amp; Schwettmann, L. The impact of diabetes on labour market participation: A systematic review of results and methods. BMC Public Health. 2019;19:25. doi:10.1186/s12889-018-6324-6\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eInternational Diabetes Federation. IDF Diabetes Atlas. 2017. Retrieved from Brussels, Belgium:\u0026nbsp;\u003ca href=\"http://www.diabetesatlas.org\"\u003ehttp://www.diabetesatlas.org\u003c/a\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eNaylor, C., Parsonage, M., McDaid, D., Knapp, M., Fossey, M. and Galea, A. \u003cem\u003eLong-term conditions and mental health: the cost of co-morbidities\u003c/em\u003e. The King\u0026apos;s Fund, London, UK\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMegari, K. (2013). Quality of life in chronic disease patients. Health Psychol Res. 2012;1:27. doi:10.4081/hpr.2013.e27\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eJeon, Y.-H., Essue, B., Jan, S., Wells, R., \u0026amp; Whitworth, J. A. Economic hardship associated with managing chronic illness: a qualitative inquiry. BMC Health Serv Res. 2009;9:182. doi:10.1186/1472-6963-9-182\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eEmbuldeniya, G. V., Bell, P.,Bell, E., Mary; Nyhof-Young, J., Sale, J.E.M. \u0026amp; Britten, N. The experience and impact of chronic disease peer support interventions: a qualitative synthesis. Patient Educ. Couns.\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;2013;92\u003c/em\u003e:3-12.\u0026nbsp;\u003ca href=\"https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2013.02.002\"\u003ehttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2013.02.002\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eStickley, A., \u0026amp; Koyanagi, A. Physical multimorbidity and loneliness: A population-based study. PLoS One. 2018;13(1):e0191651. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0191651\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHawkley, L. C., \u0026amp; Cacioppo, J. T. Loneliness Matters: A Theoretical and Empirical Review of Consequences and Mechanisms. Ann. Behav. Med\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e 2010;40:218-27. doi:10.1007/s12160-010-9210-8\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eReijnders, T., Schuler, M., Jelusic, D., Troosters, T., Janssens, W., Schultz, K., \u0026amp; Von Leupoldt, A. The Impact of Loneliness on Outcomes of Pulmonary Rehabilitation in Patients with COPD. Chronic Obstr. Pulm. Dis. 2018;15:446-53. doi:10.1080/15412555.2018.1471128\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eNCD Countdown 2030 collaborators. NCD Countdown 2030: pathways to achieving Sustainable Development Goal target 3.4. Lancet, 2020;396:918\u0026ndash;34. \u003ca href=\"https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31761-X\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31761-X\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWilper, A. P., Woolcer, S., Lasser, K. E., McCormick, D., Bor, D. H., \u0026amp; Himmelstein, D. U. A national study of chronic disease prevalence and access to care in uninsured U.S. adults. Ann. Intern. Med. 2008;149:170\u0026ndash;76. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-149-3-200808050-00006\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eStuckler, D., Basu, S., \u0026amp; McKee, M. Drivers of inequality in Millennium Development Goal progress: a statistical analysis. PLoS Medicine. 2010;7:e1000241. \u003ca href=\"https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000241\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000241\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWorld Health Organization. Global action plan for the prevention and control of noncommunicable diseases 2013-2020. 2013. Retrieved from\u0026nbsp;\u003ca href=\"http://www.who.int/iris/handle/10665/94384\"\u003ehttp://www.who.int/iris/handle/10665/94384\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eJowsey, T., Yen, L., \u0026amp; W, P. M. Time spent on health related activities associated with chronic illness: a scoping literature review. BMC Public Health. 2012;12:1044. \u003ca href=\"https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-12-1044\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-12-1044\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAdelman, R. D., Tmanova, L. L., Delgado, D., Dion, S., \u0026amp; Lachs, M. S. Caregiver burden: a clinical review.\u0026nbsp;JAMA.\u0026nbsp;2014;\u003cem\u003e311\u003c/em\u003e:1052\u0026ndash;60. \u003ca href=\"https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2014.304\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2014.304\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eCourtin, E., Jemiai, N., \u0026amp; Mossialos, E. Mapping support policies for informal carers across the European Union. Health Policy. 2014;118:84\u0026ndash;94. \u003ca href=\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2014.07.013\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2014.07.013\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eFujisawa, R. \u0026amp; Colombo, F. The Long-Term Care Workforce: Overview and Strategies to Adapt Supply to a Growing Demand. OECD Health Working Papers. 2009;44. OECD Publishing, Paris. \u003ca href=\"https://doi.org/10.1787/225350638472\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1787/225350638472\u003c/a\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLorig, K. R., Ritter, P., Stewart, A. L., Sobel, D. S., Brown Jr, B. W., Bandura, A., et al. Chronic disease self-management program: 2-year health status and health care utilization outcomes. Med Care. 2001;39:1217\u0026ndash;23.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWilson, P. M., Kendall, S., \u0026amp; Brooks, F. The Expert Patients Programme: a paradox of patient empowerment and medical dominance.\u0026nbsp;Health Soc. Care Community.\u0026nbsp;2007;\u003cem\u003e15\u003c/em\u003e:426\u0026ndash;38. \u003ca href=\"https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2524.2007.00701.x\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2524.2007.00701.x\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWingate, L., Graffy, J., Holman, D., \u0026amp; Simmons, D. Can peer support be cost saving? An economic evaluation of RAPSID: a randomized controlled trial of peer support in diabetes compared to usual care alone in East of England communities.\u0026nbsp;BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care.\u0026nbsp;2017;\u003cem\u003e5\u003c/em\u003e:e000328. \u003ca href=\"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjdrc-2016-000328\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1136/bmjdrc-2016-000328\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKingod, N., Cleal, B., Wahlberg, A., \u0026amp; Husted, G. R. (2017). Online Peer-to-Peer Communities in the Daily Lives of People With Chronic Illness: A Qualitative Systematic Review. Qual Health Res\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e 2017;27:89\u0026ndash;99.\u0026nbsp;\u003ca href=\"https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732316680203\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/1049732316680203\u003c/a\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMunce, S., Shepherd, J., Perrier, L., Allin, S., Sweet, S. N., Tomasone, J. R., Nelson, M., Guilcher, S., Hossain, S., \u0026amp; Jaglal, S. Online peer support interventions for chronic conditions: A scoping review protocol. BMJ Open. 2017;7:e017999.\u0026nbsp;\u003ca href=\"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017999\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017999\u003c/a\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLauckner, H. M. H., Susan L. Peer support for people with chronic conditions in rural areas: a scoping review. Rural Remote Health\u003cem\u003e. 2016;16\u003c/em\u003e:3601.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSokol, R., \u0026amp; Fisher, E. Peer Support for the Hardly Reached: A Systematic Review. Am J Public Health, 2016;106:1308.\u0026nbsp;\u003ca href=\"http://dx.doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2016.303180a\"\u003ehttp://dx.doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2016.303180a\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKohut, S. A., Stinson, J., van Wyk, M., Giosa, L., \u0026amp; Luca, S. Systematic review of peer support interventions for adolescents with chronic illness. Int J Child Adolesc Health. 2014;7:183-97.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eCooper, K., Kirkpatrick, P., \u0026amp; Wilcock, S. The effectiveness of peer support interventions for community-dwelling adults with chronic non-cancer pain: A systematic review.\u0026nbsp;JBI Database Syst Rev Implement. 2014;12:319-48.\u0026nbsp;\u003ca href=\"http://dx.doi.org/10.11124/jbisrir-2014-1590\"\u003ehttp://dx.doi.org/10.11124/jbisrir-2014-1590\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMoher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, Shekelle P, Stewart L. A. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015;4:1.\u0026nbsp;\u003ca href=\"http://www.systematicreviewsjournal.com/content/4/1/1\" target=\"_blank\"\u003edoi: 10.1186/2046-4053-4-1\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGrant, M. J., \u0026amp; Booth, A. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Info Libr J. 2009;26:91\u0026ndash;108. \u003ca href=\"https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePitt, V., Lowe, D., Hill, S., Prictor, M., Hetrick, S. E., Ryan, R., \u0026amp; Berends, L. Consumer-providers of care for adult clients of statutory mental health services. Cochrane Database Syst Rev\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e 2013;3:CD004807. \u003ca href=\"https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD004807.pub2\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD004807.pub2\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWorld Health Organization. WHO methods and data sources for global burden of disease 2000-2016. Global Health Estimates Technical Paper. 2018;WHO/HIS/HSI/GHE/2016.4. Geneva: World Health Organization. Retrieved from (\u003ca href=\"http://www.who.int/healthinfo/statistics/GlobalDALYmethods_2000_2016.pdf\"\u003ehttp://www.who.int/healthinfo/statistics/GlobalDALYmethods_2000_2016.pdf\u003c/a\u003e).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eEndNote reference management software. Clarivate Analytics. 2019;Version X9\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHoey, L. M. I., Sandra C.; White, Victoria M.; Jefford, Michael. Systematic review of peer-support programs for people with cancer. Patient Educ. Couns\u003cem\u003e.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e2008;70:315-37.\u0026nbsp;\u003ca href=\"https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2007.11.016\"\u003ehttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2007.11.016\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMeyer, A., Coroiu, A., \u0026amp; Korner, A. One-to-one peer support in cancer care: a review of scholarship published between 2007 and 2014. Eur J Cancer Care. 2015;24:299\u0026ndash;312.\u0026nbsp;\u003ca href=\"https://doi.org/10.1111/ecc.12273\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/ecc.12273\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eShea, B. J., Reeves, B. C., Wells, G., Thuku, M., Hamel, C., Moran, J., et al. AMSTAR 2: A critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ. 2017;j4008. doi:10.1136/bmj.j4008\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePopay, J., Roberts, H., Sowden, A., Petticrew, M., Arai, L., Rodgers, M., et al. Guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic reviews: A product of the ESRC methods programme. 2006;(Version I). Lancaster, UK: University of Lancaster.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHsieh, H. F. \u0026amp; Shannon, S. E. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res. 2005;15:1277-88.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBennett, P. N., St Clair Russell, J., Atwal, J., Brown, L., \u0026amp; Schiller, B. Patient-to-patient peer mentor support in dialysis: Improving the patient experience. Semin Dial. 2018;31:455\u0026ndash;61.\u0026nbsp;\u003ca href=\"https://doi.org/10.1111/sdi.12703\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/sdi.12703\u003c/a\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBoucher, L. M., Liddy, C., Mihan, A., \u0026amp; Kendall, C. Peer-led Self-management Interventions and Adherence to Antiretroviral Therapy Among People Living with HIV: A Systematic Review. AIDS Behav.\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;2020;\u003c/em\u003e24:998-1022. doi:10.1007/s10461-019-02690-7\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eCampbell, H. S., Phaneuf, M. R. \u0026amp; Deane, K. Cancer peer support programs-do they work? Patient Educ. Couns.\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e2004;55:3-15.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eCici, D. How is the Effect of Peer Support on Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Patients? A Systematic Review. 2018;eprints.ners.unair.ac.id.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eClayton, C., Catrin, M. \u0026amp; Sakakibara, B. Enhancing Social Support Among People with Cardiovascular Disease: A Systematic Scoping Review. Curr Cardiol Rep\u003cem\u003e.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e2019;21:123.\u0026nbsp;\u003ca href=\"https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11886-019-1216-7\"\u003ehttps://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11886-019-1216-7\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDale, J., Caramlau, I. O., Lindenmeyer, A., \u0026amp; Williams, S. M. Peer support telephone calls for improving health. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008;4:CD006903.\u0026nbsp;\u003ca href=\"https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD006903.pub2\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD006903.pub2\u003c/a\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDale, J. R., Williams, S. M., \u0026amp; Bowyer, V. What is the effect of peer support on diabetes outcomes in adults? A systematic review. Diabet Med. 2012;29:1361\u0026ndash;77.\u0026nbsp;\u003ca href=\"https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-5491.2012.03749.x\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-5491.2012.03749.x\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDunn, J., Steginga, S. K, Rosoman, N. \u0026amp; Millichap, D. A Review of Peer Support in the Context of Cancer. J Psychosoc Oncol. 2003;21:55-67.\u0026nbsp;\u003ca href=\"http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J077v21n02_04\"\u003ehttp://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J077v21n02_04\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eEnriquez, M. C. \u0026amp; Vicki, S. Peers as Facilitators of Medication Adherence Interventions. J Prim Care Community Health\u003cem\u003e.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e2016;\u003cem\u003e7\u003c/em\u003e:44-55. doi:10.1177/2150131915601794\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eFisher, E. B., Boothroyd, R. I., Elstad, E. A., Hays, L., Henes, A., Maslow, G. R., \u0026amp; Velicer, C. Peer support of complex health behaviors in prevention and disease management with special reference to diabetes: Systematic reviews.\u0026nbsp;Clin Diabetes Endocrinol.\u0026nbsp;2017;3:4. \u003ca href=\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40842-017-0042-3\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1186/s40842-017-0042-3\u003c/a\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGatlin, T. K., Serafica, R. \u0026amp; Johnson, M. Systematic review of peer education intervention programmes among individuals with type 2 diabetes. J Clin Nurs. 2017;26:4212-22.\u0026nbsp;\u003ca href=\"https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jocn.13991\"\u003ehttps://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jocn.13991\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHu, J., Wang, X., Guo, S., Chen, F., Wu, Y. Y., Ji, F. J., \u0026amp; Fang, X. Peer support interventions for breast cancer patients: a systematic review. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2019;174:325\u0026ndash;41.\u0026nbsp;\u003ca href=\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-018-5033-2\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-018-5033-2\u003c/a\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKew, K. M., Carr, R., \u0026amp; Crossingham, I. Lay-led and peer support interventions for adolescents with asthma. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e 2017;4:CD012331.\u0026nbsp;\u003ca href=\"https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD012331.pub2\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD012331.pub2\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKong, L. N., Hu, P., Zhao, Q. H., Yao, H. Y., \u0026amp; Chen, S. Z. Effect of peer support intervention on diabetes distress in people with type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Nurs. 2020;26:e12830.\u0026nbsp;\u003ca href=\"http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ijn.12830\"\u003ehttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ijn.12830\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKrishnamoorthy, Y., Sakthivel, M., Sarveswaran, G., \u0026amp; Eliyas, S. K. Effectiveness of peer led intervention in improvement of clinical outcomes among diabetes mellitus and hypertension patients-A systematic review and meta-analysis. Prim Care Diabetes. 2019;13:158\u0026ndash;69.\u0026nbsp;\u003ca href=\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pcd.2018.11.007\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.pcd.2018.11.007\u003c/a\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLee, M. K. \u0026amp; Suh, S. R. Effects of peer-led interventions for patients with cancer: a meta-analysis. Oncol Nurs Forum.\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e2018;45:217-36.\u0026nbsp;\u003ca href=\"https://dx.doi.org/10.1188/18.ONF.217-236\"\u003ehttps://dx.doi.org/10.1188/18.ONF.217-236\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLevy, B. B., Luong, D., Perrier, L., Bayley, M. T., \u0026amp; Munce, S. Peer support interventions for individuals with acquired brain injury, cerebral palsy, and spina bifida: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e 2019;19:288.\u0026nbsp;\u003ca href=\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-019-4110-5\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-019-4110-5\u003c/a\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMacvean, M. L., White, V. M., \u0026amp; Sanson-Fisher, R. One-to-one volunteer support programs for people with cancer: a review of the literature. Patient Educ. Couns.\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e2008;70:10-24.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMcCaughan, E., Parahoo, K., Hueter, I., Northouse, L., \u0026amp; Bradbury, I. Online support groups for women with breast cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e 2017;3:CD011652.\u0026nbsp;\u003ca href=\"https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD011652.pub2\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD011652.pub2\u003c/a\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eJackson, A. M., Gregory, S., \u0026amp; McKinstry, B. Self-help groups for patients with coronary heart disease as a resource for rehabilitation and secondary prevention-what is the evidence? Heart Lung. 2009;38:192\u0026ndash;200.\u0026nbsp;\u003ca href=\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrtlng.2009.01.009\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrtlng.2009.01.009\u003c/a\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMerianos, A. L., King, K. A., Vidourek, R. A., \u0026amp; Nabors, L. A. Mentoring and peer-led interventions to improve quality of life outcomes among adolescents with chronic illnesses. Appl Res Qual Life. 2016;11:1009\u0026ndash;23.\u0026nbsp;\u003ca href=\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-015-9415-x\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-015-9415-x\u003c/a\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eParry, M., \u0026amp; Watt-Watson, J. Peer support intervention trials for individuals with heart disease: a systematic review. Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2010;9:57\u0026ndash;67.\u0026nbsp;\u003ca href=\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejcnurse.2009.10.002\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejcnurse.2009.10.002\u003c/a\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eQi, L., Liu, Q., Qi, X., Wu, N., Tang, W., \u0026amp; Xiong, H. Effectiveness of peer support for improving glycaemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. BMC Public Health. 2015;15:471.\u0026nbsp;\u003ca href=\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-015-1798-y\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-015-1798-y\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSmall, N., Blickem, C., Blakeman, T., Panagioti, M., Chew-Graham, C. A., \u0026amp; Bower, P. Telephone based self-management support by \u0026apos;lay health workers\u0026apos; and \u0026apos;peer support workers\u0026apos; to prevent and manage vascular diseases: A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Health Serv Res\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e 2013;13:533.\u0026nbsp;\u003ca href=\"https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-13-533\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-13-533\u003c/a\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTang, T. S., Ayala, G. X., Cherrington, A., Rana, G. A review of volunteer-based peer support interventions in diabetes. Diabetes Spectr.\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e2011;24:85-98.\u0026nbsp;\u003ca href=\"http://dx.doi.org/10.2337/diaspect.24.2.85\"\u003ehttp://dx.doi.org/10.2337/diaspect.24.2.85\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWalshe, C. \u0026amp; Roberts, D. Peer support for people with advanced cancer: a systematically constructed scoping review of quantitative and qualitative evidence. Curr Opin Support Palliat Care\u003cem\u003e.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e2018;12:308-22.\u0026nbsp;\u003ca href=\"https://dx.doi.org/10.1097/SPC.0000000000000370\"\u003ehttps://dx.doi.org/10.1097/SPC.0000000000000370\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHiggins, J. P. T., Green, S. (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. 2011;Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration.\u0026nbsp;\u003ca href=\"http://www.cochrane-handbook.org\"\u003ewww.cochrane-handbook.org\u003c/a\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTajfel, H. The achievement of inter-group differentiation. In H. Tajfel (Ed.),\u0026nbsp;Differentiation Between Social Groups\u0026nbsp;1978;77\u0026ndash;100. London: Academic Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eFestinger, L.\u0026nbsp;A theory of social comparison processes. Hum Relat\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e 1954;7:117-40.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePrince, M., Patel, V., Saxena, S., Maj, M., Maselko, J., Phillips, M. R., \u0026amp; Rahman, A. No health without mental health. Lancet, 2007;370:859\u0026ndash;77.\u0026nbsp;\u003ca href=\"https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61238-0\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61238-0\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLeamy, M., Bird, V., Le Boutillier, C., Williams, J., \u0026amp; Slade, M. Conceptual framework for personal recovery in mental health: Systematic review and narrative synthesis.\u0026nbsp;The Br J Psychiatry.\u0026nbsp;2011;\u003cem\u003e199\u003c/em\u003e(6):445\u0026ndash;52. \u003ca href=\"https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.bp.110.083733\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.bp.110.083733\u003c/a\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGopalan, G., Lee, S. J., Harris, R., Acri, M. C., \u0026amp; Munson, M. R. Utilization of peers in services for youth with emotional and behavioral challenges: A scoping review. J. Adolesc.\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e2017;55:88\u0026ndash;115. \u003ca href=\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2016.12.011\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2016.12.011\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"},{"header":"Table","content":"\u003cp\u003eDue to technical limitations, table 5 is only available as a download in the Supplemental Files section.\u003c/p\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":true,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"bmc-health-services-research","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"bhsr","sideBox":"Learn more about [BMC Health Services Research](http://bmchealthservres.biomedcentral.com/)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"https://www.editorialmanager.com/BHSR/default.aspx","title":"BMC Health Services Research","twitterHandle":"BMC_series","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"BMC Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Chronic conditions, Peer support, Review of reviews, Systematic review","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-908557/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-908557/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBackground:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e \u003c/em\u003ePeople with chronic conditions experience functional impairment, lower quality of life, and greater economic hardship and poverty. Social isolation and loneliness are common for people with chronic conditions, with multiple co-occurring chronic conditions predicting an increased risk of loneliness. Peer support is a socially driven intervention involving people with lived experience of a condition helping others to manage the same condition, potentially offering a sense of connectedness and purpose, and experiential knowledge to manage disease. However, it is unclear what outcomes are important to patients across the spectrum of chronic conditions, what works and for whom. The aims of this review were\u003cem\u003e \u003c/em\u003eto (1) collate peer support intervention components, (2) collate the outcome domains used to evaluate peer support, (3) synthesise evidence of effectiveness, and (4) identify the mechanisms of effect, for people with chronic conditions.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMethods:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e \u003c/em\u003eA systematic review of reviews was conducted. Reviews were included if they reported on formal peer support between adults or children with one or more chronic condition. Data were analysed using narrative synthesis.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eResults:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e \u003c/em\u003eThe search identified 6222 unique publications. Thirty-one publications were eligible for inclusion. Components of peer support were organised into nine categories: social support, psychological support, practical support, empowerment, condition monitoring and treatment adherence, informational support, behavioural change, encouragement and motivation, and physical training. Fifty-five outcome domains were identified. Quality of life, and self-efficacy were the most measured outcome domains identified. Most reviews reported positive but non-significant effects.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConclusions:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e \u003c/em\u003eThe effectiveness of peer support is unclear and there are inconsistencies in how peers are defined, a lack of clarity in research design and intervention reporting, and widely variable outcome measurement.\u003cem\u003e \u003c/em\u003eThis review presents a range of components of peer support interventions that may be of interest to clinicians developing new support programmes. However, it is unclear precisely what components to use and with whom. Therefore, implementation of support in different clinical settings may benefit from participatory action research so that services may reflect local need.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Peer Support for People with Chronic Conditions: A Systematic Review of Reviews","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2021-10-12 14:42:57","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-908557/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Major revision","date":"2021-12-13T12:01:05+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2021-12-08T21:36:23+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"a9652f5f-3829-48b4-bf84-7b4308956cdd","date":"2021-11-18T15:39:51+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2021-11-18T15:23:22+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2021-11-18T15:01:07+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvited","content":"","date":"2021-10-10T06:44:46+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2021-10-10T06:41:35+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"BMC Health Services Research","date":"2021-09-15T17:04:41+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"bmc-health-services-research","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"bhsr","sideBox":"Learn more about [BMC Health Services Research](http://bmchealthservres.biomedcentral.com/)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"https://www.editorialmanager.com/BHSR/default.aspx","title":"BMC Health Services Research","twitterHandle":"BMC_series","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"BMC Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"a0a70236-11ad-45ce-a6f6-88a71a8ef912","owner":[],"postedDate":"October 12th, 2021","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"published-in-journal","subjectAreas":[{"id":7791539,"name":"Health Economics \u0026 Outcomes Research"},{"id":7791540,"name":"Health Policy"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2022-03-31T18:52:29+00:00","versionOfRecord":{"articleIdentity":"rs-908557","link":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-022-07816-7","journal":{"identity":"bmc-health-services-research","isVorOnly":false,"title":"BMC Health Services Research"},"publishedOn":"2022-03-31 18:52:29","publishedOnDateReadable":"March 31st, 2022"},"versionCreatedAt":"2021-10-12 14:42:57","video":"","vorDoi":"10.1186/s12913-022-07816-7","vorDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-022-07816-7","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-908557","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-908557","identity":"rs-908557","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"7rjqhiLT3MXkJMwkYKINL","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}