Conectar
To explore the perceived effectiveness, impact and benefits of a work-based cancer survivorship peer support programme for healthcare employees who have experienced or are experiencing cancer.
A qualitative descriptive study.
Purposive sampling was used to recruit 33 participants (10 peers, 12 peer supporters, 4 line managers and 7 members of the governance group). Data were collected between October 2024 and February 2025 through individual interviews and focus groups. Data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis.
Four themes were generated: Programme Reach and Adoption, Implementing the Programme, Programme Effectiveness and Impact and Programme Maintenance and Growth. Challenges included the pilot status of the programme impacting awareness and uptake, potential reluctance to share diagnoses and the impact of cancer on colleagues. The approach of peer supporters was considered central to the programmes' success. Peer supporters valued training and continuous practice development opportunities.
Demonstrated benefits, including satisfaction and the value of peer support, were evident. To ensure programme maintenance, increased recruitment and training of peer supporters and clear communication regarding the programme and referral pathways are essential. Financial support is required to maintain training and address dissemination challenges.
Work-based peer support programmes can help cancer survivors reintegrate into the workforce more effectively, rebuilding confidence, fostering resilience and navigating workplace expectations. Enhanced staff well-being may also positively influence retention, performance and health-related disruptions.
Findings from this underexplored area of work-based peer support within a healthcare setting have the potential to influence healthcare leaders, policy makers and future research. Improving staff's' quality of life on return to work benefits the individual, the organisation and care delivery by ensuring a healthy, supported workforce.
The Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR) checklist and the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TiDieR) checklist were utilised.
No patient or public contribution.
Cleft lip and palate significantly impact a child’s speech and facial appearance. Children undergo cleft repairs in infancy, but poor results from these initial repairs often lead to secondary surgery. In the late 1990s, cleft care provision in the UK was centralised to approximately 11 managed clinical networks or centres. This centralisation has been associated with improvements in speech and aesthetic outcomes, but little is known about the effect of centralisation on the use of secondary surgery. The purpose of this study was to compare the cumulative incidence of secondary cleft surgeries before and after centralisation and the proportion of children achieving good clinical outcomes without secondary surgery.
Retrospective, cross-sectional.
Two cross-sectional studies of 5-year-old children with non-syndromic unilateral cleft lip and palate were conducted, one precentralisation and one postcentralisation.
The cumulative incidence of secondary surgery from birth through age 5 was compared precentralisation and postcentralisation using Fisher’s exact test, as were facial appearance and speech outcomes at age 5. Risk ratios (RR) were estimated using log-binomial multivariable regression models that adjusted for sex and age at evaluation.
Postcentralisation, the proportion of children achieving good or excellent facial appearance increased from 16% to 42% (p
Centralisation of cleft care was associated with improved outcomes of primary lip and palate repairs and a corresponding reduction in secondary surgery.
FreshRSS 