Learning from peer researcher-facilitated surveys: a narrative review on involvement, training and evaluation

Peer researchers (PRs) are defined as individuals whose lived experience aligns with that of the population being studied. Their involvement is intended to bring shared experiences and insights that can generate richer, more meaningful data than can be achieved through a traditional researcher-participant relationship. Although PRs frequently support data collection through surveys, the ways in which these roles are supported and evaluated remain inconsistently described and poorly understood.

To critically examine existing literature on PR-facilitated survey-based data collection methods, with a focus on training, support and evaluation. The review aims to highlight recurrent challenges and propose recommendations for future PR-facilitated data collection methods.

An initial search of the literature aimed to identify studies using PRs to collect data using surveys. The search found inconsistent terminology and heterogeneous reporting across studies. A narrative, interpretive review was therefore undertaken to collate the literature allowing for diversity in reporting and terminology, to ensure valuable methodological and experiential insights were not overlooked.

Across studies, PR roles varied substantially, many were limited to data collection alone, while others entailed participation across all stages of the research process. Training provision ranged from intensive, structured programmes to minimal or absent preparation, often justified by assumptions about prior experience. While PR involvement was frequently credited with improving recruitment, rapport and data richness, systematic evaluation was uncommon. Reported challenges included unclear role expectations, insufficient support and persistent hierarchical dynamics raising concerns about tokenistic involvement. PR-facilitated surveys provided structure but risked missing nuanced responses.

PR-facilitated data collection methods offer significant potential to enhance equity, relevance and inclusivity in participatory research, but these benefits are not automatic. Meaningful involvement requires role clarity, training designed to build capacity and support power-sharing, systematic evaluation of PR experiences, and appropriate funding and infrastructure. This review highlights the need to move beyond symbolic patient and public involvement requirements, towards transparent reporting and sustained support for PR roles.