Abstract
Peer support for people living with HIV has gained increasing traction and is considered a way to take an active role in self-management. The existing research examining peer support interventions has reported promising evidence of the benefits of peer support. The purpose of our scoping review was to describe research on peer support for people living with HIV. We included 53 studies and sorted them into analytic categories and conducted descriptive analyses. The studies that were published between November/December 2000 and May 2021, had a range of study designs and heterogeneous priority groups, and included 20,657 participants from 16 countries. We identified 43 evaluations of the effect of peer support and 10 evaluations of implementation, process, feasibility, cost of peer support. We also categorized peer support by key functions, finding that the most common key functions were linkage to clinical care and community resources and assistance in daily management, with only one study directly related to chronic care. There is growing research interest in peer support for people living with HIV, particularly in high-income countries and related to the evaluation of effects. The revealed gaps of prioritized functions of peer support have implications for further research. Further focus on interventions addressing secondary prevention related to noncommunicable diseases as part of a care package is recommended to meet people’s needs and preferences and increase self-management related to a chronic lifelong condition.
At the end of 2020, there were an estimated 37.6 million people living with human immunodeficiency virus (PLHIV) worldwide, with approximately 25.4 million undergoing antiretroviral therapy (ART; World Health Organization [WHO], 2021). Although global and national actions have halted and reversed the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) epidemic and reduced HIV incidence overall, HIV infections are on the rise in some countries and regions (WHO, 2021). Furthermore, ART provisions in highly endemic settings, such as sub-Saharan Africa, are challenged due to shortages linked to universal health coverage (UNAIDS, 2020). Thus, HIV remains a public health concern worldwide. The Global Health Sector Strategy on HIV, 2016–2021 (WHO, 2016b), outlines fast-track actions to be implemented as an HIV response to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (United Nations). These actions must address challenges related to different health care systems and varying health care coverage (such as inconsistent price of medications) across countries. A multisectoral response is outlined as a strategy highlighting the importance of involving the community, particularly PLHIV, for effective delivery of health services (WHO, 2016b).
People from key populations, that is, those at elevated risk of acquiring HIV infection (including sex workers, people who inject drugs, prisoners, transgender people, and men who have sex with men) tend to have less access to ART and health care services (Liamputtong, 2007; Sokol & Fisher, 2016). However, for PLHIV and receiving ART, HIV has become a chronic lifelong condition (CLLC; WHO, 2021). An increasing burden for PLHIV is coinfections such as hepatitis, tuberculosis, and other comorbidities (WHO, 2016b), the most prevalent being noncommunicable diseases and mental health disorders (Brandt, 2009; Parcesepe et al., 2018; WHO, 2016b).
Although the life expectancy for PLHIV has increased dramatically, they continue to face other challenges, such as discrimination, stigma, and self-stigma (Grønningsæter & Hansen, 2018; Pantelic et al., 2019; WHO, 2016b). Since the beginning of the epidemic, HIV infection has been associated with social stigma and prejudice, and it remains one of the most stigmatized diseases in almost every culture, worldwide (Pantelic et al., 2019; Relf et al., 2021). Furthermore, apart from utilizing health care services for HIV medical care, many PLHIV disconnect from society owing to stigma and discrimination (Berg & Ross, 2014; Chaudoir & Fisher, 2018; Relf et al., 2021). The societal prejudice can harm those living with the virus in numerous ways, perhaps most detrimentally, through mental health issues (Chaudoir & Fisher, 2018; Relf et al., 2021).
The range of health challenges indicates the importance of continued strengthening of self-management and involvement of PLHIV in their own health care services. This may contribute to empowerment and a more tailored health care service (Venter et al., 2017). Peer support from the larger HIV community can be important in this regard (Positively UK, 2016) and has been found to reduce stigma (Dunbar et al., 2020). Dennis (2003) defined the concept of peer support as “the giving of assistance and encouragement by an individual considered equal” (p. 323).
Peer support for PLHIV grew out of the 1980s activists’ reaction to combat stigma and discrimination, advocating for better treatment and care. Peer support still forms communities for people experiencing stigma or fear of exposure and ostracization (Positively UK, 2016). After the introduction of ART, peer support has become a tailored, person-centered method to provide linkage and adherence to HIV medical care, as well as support for PLHIV in taking an active role in self-management of their CLLC (Fisher, 2014; WHO, 2016a). Thus, the provision of peer support is one way of involving patients to strengthen supportive resources in health care services and increase self-management (Fisher, 2014). There is increased recognition that peer support complements general health care services and contributes to meeting consumers’ health care needs (Fisher, 2014; Fisher et al., 2018; WHO, 2016a). The Peers for Progress program draws out four key functions of peer support: (1) assistance in daily management, (2) social and emotional support, (3) linkage to clinical care and community resources, and (4) ongoing support related to chronic disease, that is, flexible, accessible support available to patients when the need arises (Fisher, 2014; Fisher et al., 2018).
A systematic review of peer support among “hardly reached individuals,” indicates that peer support may be an effective and preferred way to reach people who do not use ordinary health care services (Sokol & Fisher, 2016). Conversely, a systematic review of nine studies on peer interventions, reported the varying effect of peer support (Genberg et al., 2016). The findings of Genberg et al. (2016) are supported in a recent review on effects of peer-led self-management interventions on ART adherence and patient-reported outcomes, which showed unclear but promising effects (Boucher et al., 2020). Additionally, findings indicate that peer support is flexible enough to be applied to people with different health problems in various settings (Genberg et al., 2016; Simoni et al., 2011; Sokol & Fisher, 2016) and has positive effects, especially in lower middle- and low-income countries (Dave et al., 2019).
Given that existing research examining peer support interventions in several health service areas and among different groups has reported inconsistent evidence of the benefits of peer support (Genberg et al., 2016), there is a need for further research. To date, no review has consolidated existing research or described the scope of the empirical work undertaken on peer support for PLHIV. Therefore, this scoping review aims to document the current status of empirical research on peer support for PLHIV, to describe the characteristics of previous studies through a brief overview, and to summarize key findings from each study category to identify knowledge gaps and offer suggestions for further research.
Method
Design
To identify the range of available evidence on the topic, a scoping review was conducted following methodological framework of scoping reviews (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005; Levac et al., 2010; Peters et al., 2017) and is in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) extension for scoping reviews (Tricco et al., 2018). Unlike a systematic review on effects of intervention, diagnostic test accuracy or another narrow question, a scoping review has a broader scope, examining the extent, range, and nature of research activity on a specific topic (Peters et al., 2020). The methods, objectives, and inclusion criteria of this scoping review, were specified in advance and documented in a published protocol (CRISTIN ID = 635403).
Search Strategy for Identification of Studies
Our preliminary searches in the JBI (Joanna Briggs Institute) Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports and PROSPERO identified relevant reviews and key words. We used population, concept, and context as our search framework because the aim of the scoping reviews implies that the context is not predefined (Booth et al., 2016). Articles published between 1981 and 2021 were searched on eight electronic databases—MEDLINE (OVID), MEDLINE In-Process (OVID), Embase (OVID), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), PsycINFO (OVID), SocINDEX (EBSCOhost), Social Work Abstracts (EBSCOhost), and BASE (Bielefeld Academic Search Engine). Articles published after 1981 were included, as this was the first year when studies on HIV/AIDS were published. The search was conducted in May 2021. Our search strategy incorporated prespecified subject headings and text words in the titles and abstracts, adapted for each database. One of the reviewers (AØR) conducted the search together with an information search specialist/librarian, who was also consulted regarding the search strategy. The search strategy is shown in the Supplemental Material. In collaboration with the information search specialist/librarian, we supplemented the database searches with searches in Google Scholar, the U.K. government website, and CORE (a website that aggregates all open access research outputs from repositories and journals worldwide and makes them available to the public). Additionally, we performed hand searches in the reference lists of the included studies and relevant reviews and forward citation searches through the Web of Science (conducted June 2021).
Eligibility Criteria
Considering the aim of the review, the main inclusion criterion was that a study used empirical quantitative and/or qualitative research methods to address the topic of peer support among PLHIV. Moreover, both, those receiving and those providing peer support needed to be PLHIV aged 18 years and older. We followed the definition of peer support interventions/programs proposed by Dennis (2003), whereby the provision of assistance and encouragement is from an individual considered equal. Specifically, PLHIV had to use their own experiences to support other PLHIV, through face-to-face interaction. Furthermore, we considered studies ineligible if they included children and youth, focused on primary prevention of HIV or mother-to-child transmission, or described PLHIV support groups. However, when populations or interventions were mixed (e.g., included both adults and youth), a study was included if at least half of the population or intervention met the inclusion criteria or if the results were reported separately for our population and intervention of interest. We enforced no limits regarding settings or publication format but included only publications in English or Scandinavian languages (Norwegian, Swedish, Danish).
Selection of Literature
We stored retrieved references in an Endnote database, X9 (Thomas Reuters, New York, NY), deleted duplicate entries, and imported references to the web-based software platform, Rayyan (Ouzzani et al., 2016). Using Rayyan, two blinded reviewers independently screened all titles and abstracts according to the inclusion/exclusion criteria. We promoted all relevant publications to full-text, and the two blinded reviewers independently screened the full texts. They attempted to retrieve full texts of any studies that were not available in the public domain, by contacting the main author. Throughout the screening process, we resolved differences in opinions through reexamination of the studies and subsequent discussion. If necessary, a third reviewer decided.
Data Extraction and Synthesis (Charting Data)
Methodological quality assessment is not a prerequisite for scoping reviews. Therefore, we did not appraise the included studies (Peters et al., 2020). One reviewer (AØR) performed data extraction. Two other reviewers checked for completeness and accuracy of the extracted data. A predesigned and piloted data extraction form was used to ensure standardization and consistency (Peters et al., 2020). We extracted data regarding author, year, study characteristics (e.g., country, study design, sample size), population characteristics (e.g., gender, sexual identity), peer support characteristics (e.g., term for peer support, duration, content, and settings), and main findings/results. We also categorized the interventions based on four key functions of peer support described by Fisher et al. and the Peers for Progress program (Fisher, 2014). Studies with unclear or minimally described intervention characteristics were excluded. We key worded (Clapton et al., 2009) each study using these variables and compiled the data in a single spreadsheet. We grouped them according to their main characteristics and conducted descriptive analyses using frequencies and cross-tabulations. The grouping included sorting the studies into clusters based on how they were observed to be related to each other (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005; Clapton et al., 2009). Similarly, we copied the main findings of the qualitative studies relevant to peer support, in a Microsoft Word document. The findings are summarized in the data set.
Results
The searches resulted in 6922 individual records, of which 230 were considered potentially relevant (Figure 1). Eighty-seven studies met the inclusion criteria. The high number of included studies and the volume of data made it necessary to separate the results from the two reports. This review addresses all studies that examined the effects of peer support and evaluated implementation, process, feasibility, and cost.

PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) Flow Diagram of Literature Reviewing Process
Thus, in this study, we included 53 studies (Table 1).
Characteristics of the Included Studies (Listed in Alphabetical Order;
This study was reported in multiple publications: see also Cuong et al. 2012 and Van Tam et al. 2012. bThis study was reported in multiple publications: see also Masquillier et al. 2014 and Masquillier et al. 2015.
Characteristics of the Included Studies
The main characteristics of the 53 included studies are presented in Tables 1 and 2. For ease of reporting, each study was given a number. All studies were published in English. The number of publications on the topic of peer support for PLHIV has grown rapidly—from no publications prior to 2000 to only a few publications between 2000 and 2009 (
Summary Characteristics of the Included Studies (
The Key Functions of Peer Support
Our analysis demonstrates the different roles and key functions (Fisher, 2014) of peer support delivered, in the included studies. The most common key functions of the interventions were linkage to clinical care and community resources (
Terms and Labels
We identified 13 different labels/names for peer supporters. Between 2000 and 2009, the terms “peer,” “peer counselor/advocate/supporter/mentor/health worker,” and “health advocate” were used. Between 2010 and 2021, in addition to the prior labels, a range of new labels appeared: “peer educator/navigator/worker/facilitator/case manager/caregiver/adherence supporter/interventionist,” “community health worker,” “support worker,” and “community care coordinator.” All terms represent PLHIV serving as peers. The most frequently used labels across all included studies were “peer” (
Categories of Studies
We categorized studies by objective/aim (see Figure 1). When a study fit into more than one category, we placed it in the category that most closely matched the overall objective of the article. This review included two study categories: studies evaluating effects of peer support interventions (
Studies About Effectiveness of Peer Support
Of the 43 studies with a main focus on the effectiveness of a peer support intervention (Studies 3–7, 9–13, 15–23, 25–27, 29, 31–38, 41–49, 51–53), most were published within the past 10 years (81%), were set in the United States (44%) and Uganda (12%), and were RCTs (42%) and used mixed methods (19%; Table 3). Only two studies were conducted in Europe (Netherlands and Spain: Studies 4 and 45). In total, 18,833 participants were included in the experimental studies at baseline. Of the 30 effectiveness studies that had a comparison group, 21 of these groups received ordinary health care services.
Characteristics of Effect studies Related to PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome) in Alphabetic Order (
Although, the priority population of the effectiveness studies was diverse, the studies mainly included female and male participants living in settings associated with social factors that created barriers to accessing effective and affordable HIV health care services. Five studies included only women (Studies 5, 20, 25, 34, 51), four included people who inject drugs (Studies 5, 7, 20, 43), four recruited men who have sex with men (Studies 27, 36, 38, 46), and two U.S. studies specifically recruited people of color (Studies 9, 29).
About the chosen theoretical framework, the interventions differed. Most interventions were based on diverse frameworks, such as social cognitive theory (Studies 17, 19, 23, 29), several social support frameworks (Studies 9, 7, 42, 43), stress, and coping models (Study 5). Several interventions were based on the information, motivation, and behavioral skills model (
ART initiation and/or adherence (19 studies), viral load (16 studies), and cluster of differentiation 4 counts (CD4; 8 studies) were the most frequently measured outcomes in the included studies related to effectiveness. Other measured outcomes were retention in care, adherence to medical care, mental health, sexual behaviors among PLHIV, quality of life, and stigma. With respect to findings, most studies measuring ART initiation and/or adherence found a positive effect, but not all. One study measured HIV stigma and three others assessed internalized stigma. However, only two studies reported their results, which found decreased negative feelings and enacted/internalized stigma. Similarly, the results for the other outcomes varied. It is important to bear in mind that the populations, content of peer support, comparisons, and length of follow-up varied.
Evaluation Studies
The other evaluation studies focused on implementation (Studies 1, 24, 30), process (Studies 2, 39, 40, 50), feasibility (Studies 8, 28), and cost (Study 14; Table 1). They included 1824 male and female participants from the United States (
Implementation
The three studies on implementation were qualitative (n = 2) and mixed methods (n = 1) design. They described barriers, challenges, and strategies related to the implementation of peer support interventions as a link to care for PLHIV. One study concluded that the intervention was best suited to newly diagnosed patients (Study 1), while the other two reasoned that the specific settings affected the implementation of peer-based programs and offered considerations on the quality of the training and support of peers and their integration in the delivery of health services (Studies 24, 30).
Process
There were four process evaluations of qualitative (
Feasibility
Both studies on feasibility had a mixed methods design. One was related to the willingness and ability of persons who inject drugs to help each other. Findings indicated a high level of willingness and that the peer support intervention increased their adherence to care (Study 8). Another study, which examined the engagement of Kenyan men who have sex with men, concluded that the peer support intervention was feasible and acceptable to the participants (28).
Cost
The economic evaluation analyzed and compared the costs of a peer health worker intervention and a phone peer support intervention (Study 14). While both interventions were evaluated as potentially cost-effective, the threshold analysis suggested that the peer health worker intervention was potentially most cost-effective if it was able to avert 1.5 patients every year from switching to second-line ART.
Discussion
Our scoping review, aimed to describe the characteristics and results of evaluation research on peer support for PLHIV, identified 53 studies, all published since 2000. Research on peer support for PLHIV has grown rapidly over the past decade. This may reflect the increased life expectancy of PLHIV following the introduction of ART and, hence, peer support becoming a more integrated part of health care services.
Different Populations and Intervention Characteristics
The 53 studies demonstrated heterogeneity of populations, intervention characteristics, outcomes, and settings investigated in peer support programs. Most studies had both females and males as the priority population for peer support. Other priority groups included people who inject drugs, men who have sex with men, people of color, and individuals with little disposable income, which uncovered a varied priority population. Consistent with the aim of health promotion strategies and the Global Health Sector Strategy on HIV 2016–2021 (WHO, 1986, 2016b), it seems these investigations represent a diversity of needs of PLHIV. However, it is also worth mentioning the low number of studies that included nonbinary genders. This was true despite these individuals being at increased risk of acquiring HIV infection compared with the general population (UNAIDS, 2020). The geographical aspect is noteworthy. A large proportion of the included studies were conducted in low-resource settings and in the U.S. regions heavily affected by the HIV epidemic, while only two were conducted in Europe. This suggests that there is limited interest in this intervention among researchers in Europe.
Furthermore, the most common key intervention function, used in 41 of the interventions, was linked to care and community resources, which is important to strengthen the health care workforce related to HIV. From this perspective, peer support attempts to respond to the needs of PLHIV in priority settings. The key functions “assistance in daily management” and “linkage to care and community resources” have the flexibility to engage those living with HIV in the process of planning peer support. This involvement ensures that peer support fits the priority population. A setting-specific approach acknowledges that low-resource and high-resource settings have different needs, which is evident in the context of studies.
A Reflection on Measured Outcomes
Biological markers, such as viral load, CD4 counts, and adherence to ART, were the most frequently measured outcomes in the included studies. A recent systematic review detailed findings on these outcomes (Berg et al., 2021). Only four of our studies measured stigma as the primary outcome. This is despite stigma being a known barrier to HIV treatment and care (Relf et al., 2021), with studies showing that it affects the degree of disclosure, followed by decreased social support and health-seeking behavior (Smith et al., 2008).
It is important to measure the effect of peer support on perceived stigma. Research shows that interventions that increased linkages to care and community resources, as well as social and emotional support, were able to facilitate improvements in mental health status and had the potential to enable those living with HIV to overcome the effects of anticipated and internalized stigma (Garrido-Hernansaiz & Alonso-Tapia, 2017). Thus, social support from peers may be a resource when people experience stress in response to stigma (Dulin et al., 2018; Dunbar et al., 2020; Earnshaw et al., 2015).
We also found a need to clarify the support needed by PLHIV as individuals living with a CLLC. Although anticipated and/or experienced stigma might affect their general efforts to seek support, the included studies indicate that meeting a peer supporter may contribute to social support. However, few studies have measured whether and how peer support affects aspects of mental health and quality of life as primary outcomes, despite the high rates of documented mental health disorders among PLHIV (Brandt, 2009; Parcesepe et al., 2018). This could be related to the scant amount of peer support related to chronic diseases as a key function, according to the definition of ongoing chronic support by the Peers for Progress program (Fisher, 2014; Fisher et al., 2018). Despite the large number of studies that support self-management, social and emotional support, and linkage to HIV care, few studies have reported peer support as a long term, flexible outreach program.
What Defines Peers?
We found little uniformity in terms of both the terminology and practice of peer support. We identified 13 different labels/names for peer supporters, with the most frequently used label being “peer’. This is somewhat surprising considering our narrow inclusion criteria. In their review of “Peer Interventions to Promote Health: Conceptual Considerations,” Simoni et al. (2011) proposed the term “peer” as standard terminology with an extended definition consisting of four elements: (1) peers share key personal characteristics, circumstances or experiences with the priority group; (2) the benefits of a peer intervention derive largely from their status as peers; (3) peers do not need professional training; and (4) peers function according to a specific role. The first element coincides with a definition proposed by Dennis (2003). Still, Simoni et al. (2011) used a clearer conceptualization to distinguish peer work interventions from work by others involved in services. In this terminology, the definition of Dennis (2003) might have a wider reach than Simoni’s, although Simoni’s definition is more focused on peer roles. The variation of labels discovered across the included studies in this review may suggest that different labels fit different interventions. We categorized the key functions of peer support and found that three key functions were part of most interventions—only one focused on ongoing support related to chronic disease and two studies lacked information on key functions. It is necessary to understand the characteristics and primary key functions of peer supporters. When the intervention characteristics are insufficiently described or poorly reported, and the intervention subsequently appears to exist in many variants under different labels, it becomes harder to understand what is meant when “peer support” and similar terms are used.
Agreements and Disagreements With Other Studies or Reviews
Several reviews on peer support interventions for PLHIV have been conducted. While focusing on separate aspects, these largely mirror our findings. First, Simoni et al. (2011) conducted a systematic review to investigate the efficacy of different types of peer support in HIV/AIDS patients. The review resolved some effects of peer interventions, but heterogeneity in populations and outcomes affected the ability to draw conclusions. These authors and authors of a review published a decade later (Berg et al., 2021) state that additional, carefully designed studies are required to investigate the effectiveness of peers and the conditions that need to be present to ensure successful interventions. This reflects our finding that various intervention characteristics, settings, and outcomes challenge the ability to compare interventions. Genberg et al. (2016) conducted a systematic review of peer interventions to improve engagement in care, indicating that peers had a mixed impact on ART adherence, viral suppression, and mortality. Although peer interventions had a positive effect on linkage to and retention in care, a limited number of studies have measured these outcomes. Decroo et al. (2012) published a review that examined whether expert patients were an untapped resource of ART provision in sub-Saharan Africa. Findings indicated that PLHIV can serve as a resource in the provision of ART in this region, which is promising in this high-epidemic area. Notably, we have identified no reviews on the implementation of peer support, process evaluation, or cost analysis.
Implications
The increased number of publications on peer support for PLHIV over the last decade has shown a growing interest in this topic. Despite this, we recognize the need for more studies in Europe and sub-Saharan Africa. Only two studies were from Europe, and less than 40% of the included studies were conducted in sub-Saharan Africa, which is a high-epidemic area of HIV, identified by the WHO as a priority population (WHO, 2016b). There have been no studies from Russia, which is one of the few countries with growing HIV incidence rates. Areas such as sub-Saharan Africa and Russia are in need of fast-track action (WHO, 2016b), and research evidence from other areas with comparable populations can be transferred to these. However, there will be a lack of setting-specific knowledge. A handful of forthcoming studies on peer support for PLHIV are registered at ClincalTrials.gov. They mostly relate to the prevention of HIV, which is promising; however, few prioritize the population in sub-Saharan Africa.
Our results show that the most common key characteristics of peer support are linkage to care and community resources, assistance in daily management, and social and emotional support. These are appropriate for the priority population and the settings of the existing interventions and can, arguably, have an impact on stigma, mental health, and quality of life. Our results suggest a broader scope when the effects and experiences of peer support are measured in relation to living with HIV, knowing that new needs arise throughout life when living with a CLLC (Fisher, 2014; Fisher et al., 2018). As noted, our results align with existing global strategies and guidelines, and have relevance for policy makers and health care providers. As indicated by other reviews (Berg et al., 2021), the results support that peer support can help shoulder existing services. The Global Health Sector Strategy on HIV 2016–2020 recommends an integrated care package designed to meet people’s needs and preferences and increase self-management related to CLLC. Hence, peer support is a type of care package that can meet the various needs of PLHIV. Further focus on interventions addressing secondary prevention related to noncommunicable diseases as part of this package is recommended.
Because of its broad aim and inclusion of studies, this review is summative in nature and provides an opportunity for detailed analysis of effect studies in particular. Our results further demonstrate the scarcity of studies on the implementation, process, and cost analyses. These are important perspectives for researchers and health care entities in consideration of improvement of peer support services.
Strengths and Limitations
The systematic approach regarding searches, selection, and data extraction is the main strength of our scoping review, although a limitation of the review is the absence of studies in languages other than Scandinavian and English. Our framework helped us to be consistent in the approach, and the data analyses made it possible to identify and maintain consistency for all categories. The broad scope of this review, along with the large number of included studies with diverse findings, limited the opportunity to draw firm conclusions. This review provides a comprehensive overview of the research field on the evaluation of peer support for PLHIV. A main limitation was that the included studies had several labels for peer supporters that were previously unknown to the reviewers. It is possible that this could have affected the search strategy, and we might have missed some relevant studies.
Conclusions
This scoping review documented an increased research interest in peer support for PLHIV, although it revealed gaps in
Supplemental Material
sj-docx-1-hpp-10.1177_15248399211049824 – Supplemental material for Peer Support for People Living With HIV: A Scoping Review
Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-hpp-10.1177_15248399211049824 for Peer Support for People Living With HIV: A Scoping Review by Anita Øgård-Repål, Rigmor C. Berg and Mariann Fossum in Health Promotion Practice
Supplemental Material
sj-docx-2-hpp-10.1177_15248399211049824 – Supplemental material for Peer Support for People Living With HIV: A Scoping Review
Supplemental material, sj-docx-2-hpp-10.1177_15248399211049824 for Peer Support for People Living With HIV: A Scoping Review by Anita Øgård-Repål, Rigmor C. Berg and Mariann Fossum in Health Promotion Practice
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
References
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
