↓ Skip to main content

Participant, peer and PEEP: considerations and strategies for involving people who have used illicit substances as assistants and advisors in research

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
30 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
67 Mendeley
Title
Participant, peer and PEEP: considerations and strategies for involving people who have used illicit substances as assistants and advisors in research
Published in
BMC Public Health, July 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12889-018-5765-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alissa M. Greer, Ashraf Amlani, Bernadette Pauly, Charlene Burmeister, Jane A. Buxton

Abstract

The Peer Engagement and Evaluation Project (PEEP) aimed to engage, inspire, and learn from peer leaders who represented voices of people who use or have used illicit substances, through active membership on the 'Peeps' research team. Given the lack of critical reflection in the literature about the process of engaging people who have used illicit substances in participatory and community-based research processes, we provide a detailed description of how one project, PEEP, engaged peers in a province-wide research project. By applying the Peer Engagement Process Evaluation Framework, we critically analyze the intentions, strategies employed, and outcomes of the process utilized in the PEEP project and discuss the implications for capacity building and empowerment among the peer researchers. This process included: the formation of the PEEP team; capacity building; peer-facilitated data collection; collaborative data analysis; and, strengths-based approach to outputs. Several lessons were learned from applying the Peer Engagement Process Evaluation Framework to the PEEP process. These lessons fall into themes of: recruiting and hiring; fair compensation; role and project expectations; communication; connection and collaboration; mentorship; and peer-facilitated research. This project offers a unique approach to engaging people who use illicit substances and demonstrates how participation is an important endeavor that improves the relevance, capacity, and quality of research. Lessons learned in this project can be applied to future community-based research with people who use illicit substances or other marginalized groups and/or participatory settings.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 67 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 15%
Researcher 9 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 6%
Lecturer 3 4%
Student > Bachelor 3 4%
Other 12 18%
Unknown 26 39%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 13 19%
Social Sciences 9 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 13%
Psychology 3 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 1%
Other 3 4%
Unknown 29 43%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 July 2018.
All research outputs
#16,738,858
of 24,618,500 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#12,379
of 16,280 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#214,209
of 332,419 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#287
of 336 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,618,500 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 16,280 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.4. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 332,419 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 336 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.