Purpose The evidence base for peer support work in mental health is established, yet implementation remains a challenge. The aim of this systematic review was to identify influences which facilitate or are barriers to implementation of mental health peer support work. Methods Data sources comprised online databases (n = 11), journal table of contents (n = 2), conference proceedings (n = 18), peer support websites (n = 2), expert consultation (n = 38) and forward and backward citation tracking. Publications were included if they reported on implementation facilitators or barriers for formal face-to-face peer support work with adults with a mental health problem, and were available in English, French, German, Hebrew, Luganda, Spanish or Swahili. Data were analysed using narrative synthesis. A six-site international survey [Germany (2 sites), India, Israel, Tanzania, Uganda] using a measure based on the strongest influences was conducted. The review protocol was pre-registered (Prospero: CRD42018094838). Results The search strategy identified 5813 publications, of which 53 were included. Fourteen implementation influences were identified, notably organisational culture (reported by 53% of papers), training (42%) and role definition (40%). Ratings on a measure using these influences demonstrated preliminary evidence for the convergent and discriminant validity of the identified influences. Conclusion The identified influences provide a guide to implementation of peer support. For services developing a peer support service, organisational culture including role support (training, role clarity, resourcing and access to a peer network) and staff attitudes need to be considered. The identified influences provide a theory base to prepare research sites for implementing peer support worker interventions.

The findings suggest that one-to-one peer support delivered by trained peer supporters can improve self-efficacy of patients with severe mental disorders over a one-year period. One-to-one peer support may be regarded as an effective intervention. Future research should explore the impact of improved self-efficacy on clinical and social outcomes.

Various types of peer support merit further evaluation. Assessing the impact of peer support on service users, peer providers and organizations require complex intervention studies, using mixed methods designs with qualitative exploration of underlying processes and experiences to complement high-quality controlled trials.

Background: Peers are people with lived experience of mental illness. Peer support is an established intervention in which peers offer support to others with mental illness. A large proportion of people living with severe mental illness receive no care. The care gap is largest in low- and middle-income countries, with detrimental effects on individuals and societies. The global shortage of human resources for mental health is an important driver of the care gap. Peers are an under-used resource in global mental health. Objectives: To describe rationale and methodology of an international multicentre study which will scale-up peer support for people with severe mental illness in high-, middle-, and low-income countries through mixed-methods implementation research. Methods: UPSIDES is an international community of research and practice for peer support, including peer support workers, mental health researchers, and other relevant stakeholders in eight study sites across six countries in Europe, Africa, and Asia. During the first two years of UPSIDES, a series of qualitative studies and systematic reviews will explore stakeholders’ perceptions and the current state of peer support at each site. Findings will be incorporated into a conceptual framework to guide the development of a culturally appropriate peer support intervention to be piloted across all study sites. All intervention and study materials will be translated according to internationally recognised guidelines. Expected Impact: UPSIDES: will leverage the unique expertise of people with lived experience of mental illness to strengthen mental health systems in high-, middle- and low-income countries. UPSIDES will actively involve and empower service users and embed patient-centeredness, recovery orientation, human rights approaches, and community participation into services. The focus on capacity-building of peers may prove particularly valuable in low-resource settings in which shortages of human capital are most severe.

No abstract

Background: Peer support is an established intervention involving a person recovering from mental illness supporting others with mental illness. Peer support is an under-used resource in global mental health. Building upon comprehensive formative research, this study will rigorously evaluate the impact of peer support at multiple levels, including service user outcomes (psychosocial and clinical), peer support worker outcomes (work role and empowerment), service outcomes (cost-effectiveness and return on investment), and implementation outcomes (adoption, sustainability and organisational change). Methods: UPSIDES-RCT is a pragmatic, parallel-group, multicentre, randomised controlled trial assessing the effectiveness of using peer support in developing empowering mental health services (UPSIDES) at four measurement points over 1 year (baseline, 4-, 8-and 12-month follow-up), with embedded process evaluation and cost-effectiveness analysis. Research will take place in a range of high-, middle-and low-income countries (Germany, UK, Israel, India, Uganda and Tanzania). The primary outcome is social inclusion of service users with severe mental illness (N = 558; N = 93 per site) at 8-month follow-up, measured with the Social Inclusion Scale. Secondary outcomes include empowerment (using the Empowerment Scale), hope (using the HOPE scale), recovery (using Stages of Recovery) and health and social functioning (using the Health of the Nations Outcome Scales). Mixed-methods process evaluation will investigate mediators and moderators of effect and the implementation experiences of four UPSIDES stakeholder groups (service users, peer support workers, mental health workers and policy makers). A cost-effectiveness analysis examining cost-utility and health budget impact will estimate the value for money of UPSIDES peer support.

Schizophrenia is a complex psychiatric disorder with unknown and presumably heterogeneous etiology. While the disorder can have various outcomes, research is predominantly "deficit-oriented" emphasizing the hardship that the disorder inflicts on sufferers as well as their families and society. Beyond symptom reduction, imparting patients with hope and meaning in life is increasingly considered an important treatment target, which may raise self-esteem, and reduce self-stigma and suicidal ideation. The present study compared a psychotherapeutic treatment aimed at improving cognitive insight, individualized metacognitive intervention (MCT+), with an active control in order to elucidate if personal meaning-making and hope can be improved in patients with psychosis across time. A total of 92 patients were randomized to either individualized metacognitive therapy (MCT+) or CogPack (neuropsychological training) and followed up for up to 6 months. The "Subjective Sense in Psychosis Questionnaire" (SUSE) was administered which covers different salutogenetic vs pathogenetic views of the disorder, valence of symptom experiences and the consequences of psychosis. Patients in the MCT+ group showed a significant positive shift in attitudes towards the consequences of their illness over time relative to patients in the active control condition. There was some evidence that MCT+ also enhanced meaning-making. The perceived negative consequences of psychosis were highly correlated with depression and low self-esteem, as well as suicidality. The study shows that a cognitive insight training can improve meaning-making in patients and help them come to terms with their diagnosis.

BackgroundPeer support work roles are being implemented internationally, and increasingly in lower-resource settings. However, there is no framework to inform what types of modifications are needed to address local contextual and cultural aspects.AimsTo conduct a systematic review identifying a typology of modifications to peer support work for adults with mental health problems.MethodWe systematically reviewed the peer support literature following PRISMA guidelines for systematic reviews (registered on PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews) on 24 July 2018: CRD42018094832). All study designs were eligible and studies were selected according to the stated eligibility criteria and analysed with standardised critical appraisal tools. A narrative synthesis was conducted to identify types of, and rationales for modifications.ResultsA total of 15 300 unique studies were identified, from which 39 studies were included with only one from a low-resource setting. Six types of modifications were identified: role expectations; initial training; type of contact; role extension; workplace support for peer support workers; and recruitment. Five rationales for modifications were identified: to provide best possible peer support; to best meet service user needs; to meet organisational needs, to maximise role clarity; and to address socioeconomic issues.ConclusionsPeer support work is modified in both pre-planned and unplanned ways when implemented. Considering each identified modification as a candidate change will lead to a more systematic consideration of whether and how to modify peer support in different settings. Future evaluative research of modifiable versus non-modifiable components of peer support work is needed to understand the modifications needed for implementation among different mental health systems and cultural settings.