↓ Skip to main content

Peer engagement in harm reduction strategies and services: a critical case study and evaluation framework from British Columbia, Canada

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
38 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
81 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
133 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Peer engagement in harm reduction strategies and services: a critical case study and evaluation framework from British Columbia, Canada
Published in
BMC Public Health, May 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12889-016-3136-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alissa M. Greer, Serena A. Luchenski, Ashraf A. Amlani, Katie Lacroix, Charlene Burmeister, Jane A. Buxton

Abstract

Engaging people with drug use experience, or 'peers,' in decision-making helps to ensure harm reduction services reflect current need. There is little published on the implementation, evaluation, and effectiveness of meaningful peer engagement. This paper aims to describe and evaluate peer engagement in British Columbia from 2010-2014. A process evaluation framework specific to peer engagement was developed and used to assess progress made, lessons learned, and future opportunities under four domains: supportive environment, equitable participation, capacity building and empowerment, and improved programming and policy. The evaluation was conducted by reviewing primary and secondary qualitative data including focus groups, formal documents, and meeting minutes. Peer engagement was an iterative process that increased and improved over time as a consequence of reflexive learning. Practical ways to develop trust, redress power imbalances, and improve relationships were crosscutting themes. Lack of support, coordination, and building on existing capacity were factors that could undermine peer engagement. Peers involved across the province reviewed and provided feedback on these results. Recommendations from this evaluation can be applied to other peer engagement initiatives in decision-making settings to improve relationships between peers and professionals and to ensure programs and policies are relevant and equitable.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 38 X users 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 133 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 132 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 28 21%
Student > Bachelor 17 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 9%
Researcher 8 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 6%
Other 13 10%
Unknown 47 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 25 19%
Social Sciences 19 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 15 11%
Psychology 7 5%
Sports and Recreations 3 2%
Other 11 8%
Unknown 53 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 25. 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 13 May 2019.
All research outputs
#1,486,154
of 25,035,235 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#1,639
of 16,699 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#26,789
of 345,613 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#41
of 189 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,035,235 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 16,699 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its peers.
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 345,613 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 189 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.