article · BMC Health Services Research
Doctors often hesitate to seek conventional medical treatment, making peer support services an important initial point of contact for private and professional well-being. This qualitative study examined how twelve doctors perceived a nationwide peer support service in Norway, one year after their attendance. Through remote interviews conducted in 2020 and analysed using systematic text condensation and organisational culture theories, the investigation reviewed how effectively the service addressed their needs. The doctors contacted the service for diverse reasons, including personal and occupational difficulties. Many sought dialogue with a fellow practitioner away from their work environment, wishing to avoid the standard doctor-patient dynamic. The findings indicate that the service successfully provided psychological safety via flexible, informal, and confidential conversations, largely meeting the participants' requirements.
Healthcare systems depend heavily on the well-being of their medical workforce, yet physicians are often reluctant to seek standard care. Demonstrating that confidential, doctor-to-doctor peer networks successfully deliver psychological safety provides healthcare administrators with clear evidence on how to design low-threshold interventions that doctors will actually use when facing personal or occupational strain.
The findings can inform the design and operational standards of workforce well-being programmes and digital peer-support platforms tailored for healthcare professionals. Potential users include healthcare providers, medical associations, and occupational health organisations. The research examines an already active and tested national support programme, but the abstract does not indicate a direct commercialisation pathway or software product readiness level.
AI-generated from the published abstract. Always read the original work before citing.
BACKGROUND: Doctors' health is of importance for the quality and development of health care and to doctors themselves. As doctors are hesitant to seek medical treatment, peer support services, with an alleged lower threshold for seeking help, is provided in many countries. Peer support services may be the first place to which doctors turn when they search for support and advice relating to their own health and private or professional well-being. This paper explores how doctors perceive the peer support service and how it can meet their needs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twelve doctors were interviewed a year after attending a peer support service which is accessible to all doctors in Norway. The qualitative, semi-structured interviews took place by on-line video meetings or over the phone (due to the COVID-19 pandemic) during 2020 and were audiotaped. Analysis was data-driven, and systematic text condensation was used as strategy for the qualitative analysis. The empirical material was further interpreted with the use of theories of organizational culture by Edgar Schein. RESULTS: The doctors sought peer support due to a range of different needs including both occupational and personal challenges. They attended peer support to engage in dialogue with a fellow doctor outside of the workplace, some were in search of a combination of dialogue and mental health care. The doctors wanted peer support to have a different quality from that of a regular doctor/patient appointment. The doctors expressed they needed and got psychological safety and an open conversation in a flexible and informal setting. Some of these qualities are related to the formal structure of the service, whereas others are based on the way the service is practised. CONCLUSIONS: Peer support seems to provide psychological safety through its flexible, informal, and confidential characteristics. The service thus offers doctors in need of support a valued and suitable space that is clearly distinct from a doctor/patient relationship. The doctors' needs are met to a high extent by the peer-support service, through such conditions that the doctors experience as beneficial.
This page summarises published work. The authoritative version sits with the publisher.
DOI: 10.1186/s12913-023-09312-y
Is something wrong with this record? Report it or request removal.
Discussion
Have you built on this work, tried to replicate it, or seen it applied in practice? Share what you know. Verified researchers and MARATTO™ domain experts can open a discussion, and any member can reply. Contributions are reviewed before they appear.
No discussion yet. Open the first thread.
New to MARATTO™? Create a free account.
