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.

Peer providers are increasingly employed in mental health services. We explored challenges experienced by 31 peer providers in diverse settings and roles using in-depth interviews, as part of a larger study focusing on their recovery (Moran et al. in Qual Health Res, 2012). A grounded theory approach revealed three challenge domains: work environment, occupational path, and personal mental health. Challenges in the work environment differed between conventional mental health settings and consumer-run agencies. Occupational domain challenges included lack of clear job descriptions, lack of skills for using one's life story and lived experience, lack of helping skills, and negative aspects of carrying a peer provider label. Personal mental health challenges included overwork and symptom recurrence. Implications for all domains are discussed, with focus on training and skill development.

Providing peer support to individuals with psychiatric disabilities has emerged as a promising modality of mental health services. These services are delivered by individuals who experience mental illnesses themselves. The purpose of this study was to explore how working as a peer provider can enhance personal recovery. The study was conducted with 31 peer providers employed in a variety of mental health agencies. Data were collected through face-to-face semistructured interviews and analyzed using a grounded theory approach. Qualitative analysis revealed a wide range of recovery benefits for the peer providers. The benefits span across five wellness domains: foundational, emotional, spiritual, social, and occupational. In addition, analysis revealed five role-related and five work-environment-related mechanisms of beneficial impact. The role of sharing one's personal story is highlighted as contributing to positively reauthoring one's self-narrative. Implications for peer training, job development, and workplace supports are discussed.

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.

People with mental illnesses face the dilemma of whether to disclose or conceal their diagnosis, but this dilemma was scarcely researched. To gain in-depth understanding of this dilemma, we interviewed 29 individuals with mental illnesses: 16 with major depression/bipolar disorders and 13 with schizophrenia. Using a phenomenological design, we analyzed individuals' experiences, decision-making processes, and views of gains and costs regarding concealment and disclosure of mental illness. We found that participants employed both positive and negative disclosure/concealment practices. Positive practices included enhancing personal recovery, community integration, and/or supporting others. Negative practices occurred in forced, uncontrolled situations. We also identified various influencing factors, including familial norms of sharing, accumulated experiences with disclosure, and ascribed meaning to diagnosis. Based on these findings, we deepen the understanding about decision-making processes and the consequences of disclosing or concealing mental illness. We discuss how these finding can help consumers explore potential benefits and disadvantages of mental illness disclosure/concealment occurrences.