RNQualitativeAmerican journal of critical care : an official publication, American Association of Critical-Care Nurses2021

Benefits of Peer Support for Intensive Care Unit Survivors: Sharing Experiences, Care Debriefing, and Altruism.

Joanne McPeake, Theodore J Iwashyna, Leanne M Boehm and 22 others

PMID 33566086

WHAT IT FOUND

ICU survivors described peer support as helpful for reducing anxiety, understanding their recovery path, and finding purpose by giving back.

Participants valued sharing experiences with others further along in recovery. No differences were found between those who did and did not participate in peer support programs.

Key findings

01Patients identified three primary mechanisms by which peer support provided benefit: sharing experiences, care debriefing, and altruism.

02Sharing experiences helped reduce anxiety and social isolation by reassuring patients that others had similar issues and showing them that improvement was possible.

03The study found no distinct differences between patients who did and did not take part in peer support programmes.

STILL TO COME

How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for RNs

Read the rest of this summary

You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.

Already have one?

What it does not show

The study only included patients who were actively engaged in support programs or willing to be interviewed, so it may not represent the views of patients who disengaged or refused support. As a qualitative study, it explores perceptions and mechanisms, not clinical outcomes or efficacy. The finding that there were no distinct differences between those who did and did not participate in peer support suggests the study may not have captured the specific impact of the intervention itself versus general recovery.

Declared interests

No conflicts of interest declared by the authors.

The easy way to misread this

Do not interpret the positive patient descriptions of peer support as evidence that it improves clinical outcomes. The study found no distinct differences between participants and non-participants, and it was designed to explore mechanisms of perceived benefit, not to test efficacy.

Read it on PubMed →