Search

Purpose: To understand the perspectives of oncology nurses on peer support for patients with cancer and the role of oncology nurses in its provision., Method: Thematic semi-structured interviews of 10 oncology nurses working in a single university hospital were conducted. The data were analysed using content analysis., Results: Oncology nurses thought that peer support promotes the psychosocial wellbeing of patients with cancer by increasing their social contact and strengthening their emotional resources. In their daily work, oncology nurses engaged in several activities that promote the interactions between patients with cancer and informal forms of peer support. However, directing patients with cancer to formal peer support services outside specialised health care was not an established practice. Oncology nurses expressed several concerns about the availability of support and the coping ability of peer supporters and expressed scepticism about the reliability of information shared in peer support groups., Conclusions: The awareness of oncology nurses regarding formal peer support services appears rather limited. This knowledge gap should be reduced, such as through closer collaboration between hospitals and third sector cancer organisations, which does not appear effective at present based on the results. In addition, patients with cancer should be systematically informed about peer support., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Health policies and strategies promote the involvement of people with illness experiences in service development and production, integrating them into settings that have traditionally been domains of health professionals. In this study, we focus on the perspectives of people with personal illness experiences and explore how they justify involvement, position themselves as legitimate actors and forge collaborative relationships with health professionals. We have used discourse analysis in analysing individual interviews conducted with peer support workers and experts by experience (n = 17) who currently work in Finnish health services. The interviewees utilised discourses of empowerment, efficiency and patient-centeredness, aligning themselves with the justifications constructed by patient movements additionally to those found in current health policies. Both groups wanted to retain critical distance from professionals in order to voice criticisms of current care practices, yet they also frequently aligned themselves with professionals in order to gain legitimacy for their involvement. They adopted professional traits that moved them further from being lay participants sharing personal experiences and adopted an expert position. Although national-level policies provided backing and legitimacy for involvement, the lack of local-level guidance could hinder the practical implementation and make involvement largely dependent of professionals' discretion.

Peer support workers are now working with patients in a variety of settings, coming into close contact and even work alongside health professionals. Despite the potentially influential position peer support workers hold in relation to those engaged in support activities, their role, duties and their relationship to peers and health professionals lack clarity and is often defined by other actors. This study explores how peer support workers interpret and define the activities, responsibilities and knowledge associated with their work. Using methods of membership categorisation analysis, we analysed interview materials generated by conducting individual semi-structured interviews during the autumn of 2016 with prostate cancer peer support workers ( n  = 11) who currently volunteer as support workers in Finland. Although the peer support workers acknowledged the psychosocial aspects of the work, we argue that their interpretations extend far beyond this and encompass expertise, advocacy and activism as central features of their work. These can be used to strengthen their position as credible commentators and educators on issues relating to cancer and men's health; raise awareness and represent the 'patient's voice' and attempt to influence both policy and clinical practice. These findings suggest that by categorising their work activities in different ways, voluntary sector actors such as peer support workers can attempt to portray themselves as legitimate authorities on a range of issues and influence decision-making ranging from individual level treatment decisions all the way to health policy.

Peer support workers are now working with patients in a variety of settings, coming into close contact and even work alongside health professionals. Despite the potentially influential position peer support workers hold in relation to those engaged in support activities, their role, duties and their relationship to peers and health professionals lack clarity and is often defined by other actors. This study explores how peer support workers interpret and define the activities, responsibilities and knowledge associated with their work. Using methods of membership categorisation analysis, we analysed interview materials generated by conducting individual semi-structured interviews during the autumn of 2016 with prostate cancer peer support workers (n = 11) who currently volunteer as support workers in Finland. Although the peer support workers acknowledged the psychosocial aspects of the work, we argue that their interpretations extend far beyond this and encompass expertise, advocacy and activism as central features of their work. These can be used to strengthen their position as credible commentators and educators on issues relating to cancer and men's health; raise awareness and represent the 'patient's voice' and attempt to influence both policy and clinical practice. These findings suggest that by categorising their work activities in different ways, voluntary sector actors such as peer support workers can attempt to portray themselves as legitimate authorities on a range of issues and influence decision-making ranging from individual level treatment decisions all the way to health policy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]