Back

Peer support boosted Hepatitis C treatment access among marginalised populations in England: A Bayesian causal factor analysis.

Schmidt, C.; Samartsidis, P.; Seaman, S.; Emmanouil, B.; Foster, G.; Reid, L.; Smith, S.; De Angelis, D.

2026-04-22 health policy
10.64898/2026.04.20.26351261 medRxiv
Show abstract

To minimise health disparities, equitable access to medical treatment is paramount. In a pioneering intervention, National Health Service Englands Hepatitis C virus (HCV) programme has implemented country-wide peer support to boost treatment access. Peer support workers (peers) are individuals with relevant lived experience, who promote testing and treatment in marginalised populations underserved by traditional health services. We evaluated the English peers intervention, exploiting its staggered rollout and rich surveillance data between June 2016 and May 2021. Peers increased HCV cases identified by 13{middle dot}9% (95% credible interval (95% CrI) [5{middle dot}3, 21{middle dot}7]), sustained viral responses by 8{middle dot}0% (95% CrI [-4{middle dot}4, 18{middle dot}6]), and drug services referrals by 8{middle dot}8% (95% CrI [-12{middle dot}5, 22{middle dot}6]). The interventions effectiveness was magnified during the first COVID-19 lockdown and individuals supported by peers typically belonged to populations with poor treatment access. Our findings indicate that peers can boost equity in treatment access on a national scale.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
● 5266 papers in training set
Top 7%
23.1%
Similar papers in this journal
2
BMC Public Health
○ 158 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
8.1%
Similar papers in this journal
3
The Lancet Global Health
○ 27 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
5.3%
Similar papers in this journal
4
BMJ Open
● 601 papers in training set
Top 5%
5.0%
Similar papers in this journal
5
International Journal of Drug Policy
○ 12 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.5%
Similar papers in this journal
6
Hepatology Communications
○ 22 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.5%
50% of probability mass above
7
Clinical Infectious Diseases
◐ 235 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
3.3%
8
Clinical Microbiology and Infection
○ 62 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.9%
9
Nature Communications
○ 5641 papers in training set
Top 39%
2.5%
10
eClinicalMedicine
○ 77 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
2.5%
11
PLOS Global Public Health
● 344 papers in training set
Top 5%
2.5%
12
BMJ Public Health
● 25 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.2%
13
BMJ Global Health
● 113 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.2%
14
Open Forum Infectious Diseases
◐ 142 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.2%
15
BMC Medicine
○ 176 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.1%
16
Nature Medicine
○ 125 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.0%
17
Scientific Reports
○ 3612 papers in training set
Top 50%
1.8%
18
BMC Health Services Research
○ 51 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.8%
19
JAMA Network Open
● 130 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.0%
20
eLife
● 5828 papers in training set
Top 64%
1.0%
21
PLOS Medicine
● 110 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.9%
22
Wellcome Open Research
○ 67 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.6%
23
JMIR Public Health and Surveillance
◐ 45 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.6%
24
Vaccines
○ 198 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.6%

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.