Of these, 15 disputed papers were reviewed by a third team member. Following the quality assessment guidelines established by Letts et al. [20], thirty-three papers were rejected, for reasons ranging from qualitative data being minimal, to lack of methodological rigour. Twenty-five papers (asterisked under references) were included. Table 2a summarizes the entire process, while Table 2b shows the reasons for rejection. Table 3 shows

concepts distributed across papers, by disease type. Most concepts were unrelated to specific diseases, GSK J4 an exception being “social isolation,” a subcategory of “isolation.” Isolation was experienced in various forms across all chronic diseases, but social isolation as associated with feelings of shame, rejection and social stigma, was most pertinent to HIV. The 13 identified concepts formed the building blocks of the conceptual model, shown in Fig. 1. This model represents a range of documented experiences and impacts during and after the process of providing and receiving peer support. It suggests a motivation for participants’ interest in peer support (isolation) and represents the distinct and overlapping ways in which mentors and mentees experienced the intervention during and after participation. During the intervention, notions

of sharing had resonance for mentees, while experiential knowledge, reciprocity, helping, role satisfaction, and emotional entanglement had meaning for mentors. Both groups also related (albeit differently) to concepts such as sense of connection, isolation, selleck and

finding meaning. Once the intervention concluded, perceived outcomes across groups included finding meaning; empowerment; and changed outlook, knowledge, and behavior. Mentors and mentees experienced mutual feelings of rapport. A shared disease fostered this bond, yet was often not enough to facilitate closeness. Facing similar challenges and disease experiences, Palmatine personal and social characteristics, lifestyles and life experiences, cultural value systems, a shared commitment to the program, and reciprocal support, all helped to forge a sense of connection. The resulting supportive environment reduced feelings of isolation. Conversely, a perceived lack of similarity with peers (e.g., due to different social circumstances, value systems, ages, illness experiences) hindered rapport. Two interventions [21] and [22] featured a range of diagnoses, skills, and knowledge about the same chronic disease, but participants felt they benefited from this blend. Mentors’ personal life experiences were seen as “an essential resource” for peer mentoring [23]. Mentors used these experiences to gain entry into mentees’ lives, build relationships, steer mentees toward economic, social, and health resources, and help them overcome fear and stigma.