Peer advocacy and access to healthcare for people who are homeless in London, UK: a mixed method impact, economic and process evaluation protocol

Sujit D Rathod; Andrew Guise; P J Annand; Paniz Hosseini; Elizabeth Williamson; Alec Miners; Kate Bowgett; Martin Burrows; Robert W Aldridge; Serena Luchenski; Dee Menezes; Alistair Story; Andrew Hayward; Lucy Platt

doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2021-050717

Peer advocacy and access to healthcare for people who are homeless in London, UK: a mixed method impact, economic and process evaluation protocol

Sujit D Rathod, Andrew Guise, P J Annand, Paniz Hosseini, Elizabeth Williamson, Alec Miners, Kate Bowgett, Martin Burrows, Robert W Aldridge, Serena Luchenski, Dee Menezes, Alistair Story, Andrew Hayward, Lucy Platt

Population Health Sciences

Research output: Contribution to journal › Comment/debate › peer-review

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

People who are homeless experience higher morbidity and mortality than the general population. These outcomes are exacerbated by inequitable access to healthcare. Emerging evidence suggests a role for peer advocates—that is, trained volunteers with lived experience—to support people who are homeless to access healthcare. We plan to conduct a mixed methods evaluation to assess the effects (qualitative, cohort and economic studies); processes and contexts (qualitative study); fidelity; and acceptability and reach (process study) of Peer Advocacy on people who are homeless and on peers themselves in London, UK. People with lived experience of homelessness are partners in the design, execution, analysis and dissemination of the evaluation. Ethics approval for all study designs has been granted by the National Health Service London—Dulwich Research Ethics Committee (UK) and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine’s Ethics Committee (UK). We plan to disseminate study progress and outputs via a website, conference presentations, community meetings and peer-reviewed journal articles.

Original language	English
Article number	e050717
Pages (from-to)	e050717
Journal	BMJ Open
Volume	11
Issue number	6
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-050717
Publication status	Published - 17 Jun 2021

Access to Document

10.1136/bmjopen-2021-050717

Cite this

Rathod, S. D., Guise, A., Annand, P. J., Hosseini, P., Williamson, E., Miners, A., Bowgett, K., Burrows, M., Aldridge, R. W., Luchenski, S., Menezes, D., Story, A., Hayward, A., & Platt, L. (2021). Peer advocacy and access to healthcare for people who are homeless in London, UK: a mixed method impact, economic and process evaluation protocol. BMJ Open, 11(6), e050717. [e050717]. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-050717

@article{a5a066f44951442ebea3ee5c6d7c6315,

title = "Peer advocacy and access to healthcare for people who are homeless in London, UK: a mixed method impact, economic and process evaluation protocol",

abstract = "People who are homeless experience higher morbidity and mortality than the general population. These outcomes are exacerbated by inequitable access to healthcare. Emerging evidence suggests a role for peer advocates—that is, trained volunteers with lived experience—to support people who are homeless to access healthcare. We plan to conduct a mixed methods evaluation to assess the effects (qualitative, cohort and economic studies); processes and contexts (qualitative study); fidelity; and acceptability and reach (process study) of Peer Advocacy on people who are homeless and on peers themselves in London, UK. People with lived experience of homelessness are partners in the design, execution, analysis and dissemination of the evaluation. Ethics approval for all study designs has been granted by the National Health Service London—Dulwich Research Ethics Committee (UK) and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine{\textquoteright}s Ethics Committee (UK). We plan to disseminate study progress and outputs via a website, conference presentations, community meetings and peer-reviewed journal articles.",

author = "Rathod, {Sujit D} and Andrew Guise and Annand, {P J} and Paniz Hosseini and Elizabeth Williamson and Alec Miners and Kate Bowgett and Martin Burrows and Aldridge, {Robert W} and Serena Luchenski and Dee Menezes and Alistair Story and Andrew Hayward and Lucy Platt",

note = "Funding Information: Funding This work was supported by the UK National Institute for Health Research (PHR Project 17/44/40). Disclaimer The National Institute for Health Research had no role in the design of this study and will not have any role during its execution, analyses, interpretation of the data or decision to submit results. Competing interests None declared. Patient consent for publication Not required. Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. Copyright: Copyright 2021 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.",

year = "2021",

month = jun,

day = "17",

doi = "10.1136/bmjopen-2021-050717",

language = "English",

volume = "11",

pages = "e050717",

journal = "BMJ Open",

issn = "2044-6055",

publisher = "BMJ Publishing Group",

number = "6",

}

Rathod, SD, Guise, A , Annand, PJ, Hosseini, P, Williamson, E, Miners, A, Bowgett, K, Burrows, M, Aldridge, RW, Luchenski, S, Menezes, D, Story, A, Hayward, A & Platt, L 2021, 'Peer advocacy and access to healthcare for people who are homeless in London, UK: a mixed method impact, economic and process evaluation protocol', BMJ Open, vol. 11, no. 6, e050717, pp. e050717. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-050717

TY - JOUR

T1 - Peer advocacy and access to healthcare for people who are homeless in London, UK

T2 - a mixed method impact, economic and process evaluation protocol

AU - Rathod, Sujit D

AU - Guise, Andrew

AU - Annand, P J

AU - Hosseini, Paniz

AU - Williamson, Elizabeth

AU - Miners, Alec

AU - Bowgett, Kate

AU - Burrows, Martin

AU - Aldridge, Robert W

AU - Luchenski, Serena

AU - Menezes, Dee

AU - Story, Alistair

AU - Hayward, Andrew

AU - Platt, Lucy

N1 - Funding Information: Funding This work was supported by the UK National Institute for Health Research (PHR Project 17/44/40). Disclaimer The National Institute for Health Research had no role in the design of this study and will not have any role during its execution, analyses, interpretation of the data or decision to submit results. Competing interests None declared. Patient consent for publication Not required. Publisher Copyright: © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. Copyright: Copyright 2021 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.

PY - 2021/6/17

Y1 - 2021/6/17

N2 - People who are homeless experience higher morbidity and mortality than the general population. These outcomes are exacerbated by inequitable access to healthcare. Emerging evidence suggests a role for peer advocates—that is, trained volunteers with lived experience—to support people who are homeless to access healthcare. We plan to conduct a mixed methods evaluation to assess the effects (qualitative, cohort and economic studies); processes and contexts (qualitative study); fidelity; and acceptability and reach (process study) of Peer Advocacy on people who are homeless and on peers themselves in London, UK. People with lived experience of homelessness are partners in the design, execution, analysis and dissemination of the evaluation. Ethics approval for all study designs has been granted by the National Health Service London—Dulwich Research Ethics Committee (UK) and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine’s Ethics Committee (UK). We plan to disseminate study progress and outputs via a website, conference presentations, community meetings and peer-reviewed journal articles.

AB - People who are homeless experience higher morbidity and mortality than the general population. These outcomes are exacerbated by inequitable access to healthcare. Emerging evidence suggests a role for peer advocates—that is, trained volunteers with lived experience—to support people who are homeless to access healthcare. We plan to conduct a mixed methods evaluation to assess the effects (qualitative, cohort and economic studies); processes and contexts (qualitative study); fidelity; and acceptability and reach (process study) of Peer Advocacy on people who are homeless and on peers themselves in London, UK. People with lived experience of homelessness are partners in the design, execution, analysis and dissemination of the evaluation. Ethics approval for all study designs has been granted by the National Health Service London—Dulwich Research Ethics Committee (UK) and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine’s Ethics Committee (UK). We plan to disseminate study progress and outputs via a website, conference presentations, community meetings and peer-reviewed journal articles.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85108099728&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-050717

DO - 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-050717

M3 - Comment/debate

C2 - 34140346

SN - 2044-6055

VL - 11

SP - e050717

JO - BMJ Open

JF - BMJ Open

IS - 6

M1 - e050717

ER -

Peer advocacy and access to healthcare for people who are homeless in London, UK: a mixed method impact, economic and process evaluation protocol

Abstract

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this