What is the volume, diversity and nature of recent, robust evidence for the use of peer support in health and social care? Protocol for a systematic evidence map. Version 2

Abstract

This is version 2 of the protocol. Version 1 is available in ORE at http://hdl.handle.net/10871/123482. Version 2 includes a number of small clarifying changes to version 1 of the protocol in line with the Campbell Collaboration methodological requirements for Evidence and Gap Maps. These were: - Included details of the method for identifying ongoing studies - Clarification and justification for the cut-off date for the searches for RCTs - Justification for the inclusion of studies from high income countries - Clarification of the unit of analysis for the evidence and gap map.Evaluating the potential of peer support is receiving abundant attention. This is in response to the increasing financial pressures on NHS, which has led health and social care sector to realise the importance of enabling patients and carers to support themselves more effectively. While there is strong evidence on effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of peer support intervention, it is currently not clear how future research could contribute in better understanding peer support interventions. Also, limited synthesised literature is available on which method of delivery of peer support may be the most effective in achieving positive patient outcomes and in terms of costs incurred. Thus, we aim to systematically map the volume, diversity and nature of recent, robust evidence for the use of peer support interventions in health and social care. We will conduct the systematic mapping in two stages: in stage 1 we will map systematic reviews of peer support, and in stage 2 we will map randomised controlled trials and health economic studies of peer support interventions that have not been included in recent systematic reviews. We will search several databases: MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Social Policy and Practice, HMIC, CINAHL, ASSIA and the Campbell Library. Supplementary web searches will be conducted. Results will be limited to English language studies conducted in high-income countries. Stage 1 search will be date limited from 2015 to-date. The date cut-off for the stage 2 searches will be determined following the completion of stage 1. Eligible studies will be those that involve users of adult services with a defined health and/or social care need accessing peer support delivered in any format (such as face-to-face, online, group, individual, mixed modes etc.), delivered by paid or unpaid peer supporters. Any comparator will be eligible for inclusion and all outcomes are of interest. In stage 1 of the review, high quality, recently published systematic reviews that include comparative studies (RCTs, non-randomised controlled trials, controlled and uncontrolled before-and-after trials and interrupted time series designs) evaluating the effectiveness and/or cost-effectiveness of peer support interventions will be included. The quality of all systematic reviews identified as eligible at stage 1 will be appraised using the AMSTAR2 quality appraisal tool. At stage 2. We will use the Cochrane Risk of Bias (ROB) tool and the CHEC list for assessing risk of bias of RCTs and the quality of economic evaluations, respectively. Following data extraction using EPPI Reviewer 4, studies will be entered into an interactive evidence map to visually represent the distribution of evidence across health and social care domains. The map will have multiple layers, such that studies can be identified by population group, type of peer support and outcome. We expect that by conducting this review, we will be able to direct users to existing evidence, funders to existing gaps, and reviewers to pockets of evidence that could be reviewed to help decision making. It may also be possible to use the map to identify research questions that cut across settings, populations and interventions that would help us to understand how to use peer support interventions most effectively.National Institute for Health Research (NIHR