Experiences of older vulnerable people with ischemic heart disease and their peer mentors: A qualitative process evaluation

Aim: To understand the content and context of a realized peer mentor intervention, and to explore how mentors and mentees experienced the intervention.

Design: The study was designed as a qualitative process evaluation of a 24-week peer mentor intervention.

Methods: Semi-structured individual interviews were conducted from November 2021 to May 2022 in a purposeful sample of older vulnerable people with ischemic heart disease, referred to as mentees (n = 13), and their peer mentors (n = 12). Thematic analysis was used to analyse, categorize and interpret interview data.

Results: Five themes captured the content and context of the peer mentor intervention as experienced by mentors and mentees. 'Takes one to know one', stressing the importance of the mentor-mentee matching process; 'Varying demand for mentors', illustrating the difficulties in predicting who has the greatest need for mentoring; 'Varying degree of familiarity', describing the mentor-mentee relationship as a continuum from formal mentor to informal friend; 'Putting the patient first', illustrating how mentors support mentees based on their personal experiences of successful recovery while letting the mentee set the pace and goals; and 'Varying view of success', showing how intervention success is perceived differently by mentors and mentees.

Conclusions: The study provides new knowledge on how and under what contextual circumstances a mentor intervention works. These findings are important for the implementation of future peer mentor interventions to achieve successful peer mentor support.

Implications and impact: Non-attendance and drop-out from the cardiac rehabilitation program are prevalent problems among older vulnerable people with cardiovascular disease. This study describes a low-cost peer mentor intervention that can support this group of patients.

Reporting method: Standards for reporting qualitative research (SRQR) guided our study.

Patient or public contribution: A board of cardiovascular patients have contributed to the development and implementation of the intervention being evaluated.