Feasibility of a Peer Mentor Training Program for Patients Receiving Hemodialysis: An Educational Program Evaluation

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVE: The ‘PEER-HD’ multicenter study tests the effectiveness of peer mentorship to reduce hospitalizations in patients receiving maintenance hemodialysis. In this study, we describe the feasibility, efficacy, and acceptability of the mentor training program. STUDY DESIGN: Educational program evaluation including the following aspects: (1) description of training content, (2) quantitative analysis of feasibility and acceptability of the program, and (3) quantitative pre-post analysis of efficacy of the training to impart knowledge and self-efficacy. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Data were collected using baseline clinical and sociodemographic questionnaires from mentor participants enrolled in Bronx, NY, and Nashville, TN, themselves receiving maintenance hemodialysis. ANALYTICAL APPROACH: The outcome variables were the following: (1) feasibility measured by training module attendance and completion, (2) efficacy of the program to impart knowledge and self-efficacy measured by kidney knowledge and self-efficacy surveys, and (3) acceptability as measured by an 11-item survey of trainer performance and module content. RESULTS: The PEER-HD training program included 4 2-hour modules that covered topics including dialysis-specific knowledge and mentorship skills. Of the 16 mentor participants, 14 completed the training program. There was complete attendance to all training modules, though some patients required flexibility in scheduling and format. Performance on posttraining quizzes was consistent with high knowledge (mean scores ranged from 82.0%-90.0% correct). Mean dialysis-specific knowledge scores trended higher post training than at baseline though this difference was not statistically significant (90.0% vs 78.1%; P = 0.1). No change in mean self-efficacy scores was demonstrated from before to after training, among mentor participants (P = 0.2). Program evaluation assessments of acceptability were favorable [mean of all patient scores (0-4) within each module ranged from 3.43-3.93]. LIMITATIONS: Small sample size. CONCLUSIONS: The PEER-HD mentor training program required accommodation to patients’ schedules but was feasible. Participants rated the program favorably, and although the comparison of performance on knowledge assessments post- and pre-program showed uptake of knowledge, this was not statistically significant.