Suchergebnisse

This article presents analysis from a qualitative evaluation of a homeless health peer advocacy (HHPA) service in London, United Kingdom. Whilst evidence is growing for the impact of peer programming on clients, understanding of the impact on peers themselves is limited in the context of homelessness. Research here is vital for supporting sustainable and effective programmes. Analysis of interview data with 14 current and former peer advocates, 2 members of staff and 3 external stakeholders suggests peer advocacy and its organizational setting can generate social, human, cultural and physical resources to help peer advocates fulfil their own life goals. We explore these with reference to 'recovery capital', reframed as 'progression capitals' to reflect its relevance for pursuits unrelated to clinical understandings of recovery. Progression capitals can be defined as resources to pursue individually determined goals relating to self-fulfilment. We find engagement with, and benefits from, a peer advocacy service is most feasible among individuals already possessing some 'progression capital'. We discuss the value of progression capitals for peers alongside the implications of the role being unsalaried within a neoliberal political economy, and comment on the value that the progression capitals framework offers for the development and assessment of peer interventions more broadly.

Abstract

Objectives
When it comes to controlling workplace transmission of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, different workplaces and industrial sectors face different challenges, both in terms of likely transmission routes and which control measures can be practically, economically, and effectively implemented. This article considers a large body of research in the United Kingdom across different work sectors and time points during the COVID-19 pandemic to better understand mitigation measures, challenges to mitigating the risk of SARS-COV-2 transmission, knowledge gaps, and barriers and enablers to control viral transmission.


Methods
Data is drawn from 2 phases of research. Phase 1 gathered data from an interactive workshop (April 2022) where PROTECT researchers working across 8 work sectors shared knowledge and expertise from research conducted between 2020 and 2022. Phase 2 revisited 6 of these sectors to explore participants' views on the "living with COVID" phase of the pandemic (February–October 2022) through qualitative interviews.


Results
Our findings emphasise the importance of considering the characteristics of each work sector (and their sub-sectors), relative to the physical workplace and workforce, the ways organisations operate, and how they interact with the public. Study findings show that participant's views and organisational practices changed quickly and significantly over the course of the pandemic. Most participants initially perceived that the majority of risk mitigations would remain in place for the foreseeable future. However, following the change in Government Guidance towards "living with COVID", most mitigation measures were quickly removed and it had become necessary for sectors/organisations to restore normal operations, thereby treating the COVID-19 virus like any other illness, while remaining prepared for future health emergencies that may arise.


Conclusion
We suggest that national policy makers and organisational leaders remain mindful of the lessons learned and knowledge gained at all levels (national, regional, local, organisational, and individual) during the COVID-19 pandemic. We make recommendations in support of recovery as sectors/organisations continue "living with COVID" and other respiratory diseases; balanced with longer term planning for the next public health crisis.

EPDF and EPUB available Open Access under CC-BY-NC-ND licence. Groups most severely affected by COVID-19 have tended to be those marginalised before the pandemic and are now being largely ignored in developing responses to it. This two-volume set of Rapid Responses explores the urgent need to put co-production and participatory approaches at the heart of responses to the pandemic and demonstrates how policymakers, health and social care practitioners, patients, service users, carers and public contributors can make this happen. The second volume focuses on methods and means of co-producing during a pandemic. It explores a variety of case studies from across the global North and South and addresses the practical considerations of co-producing knowledge both now - at a distance - and in the future when the pandemic is over