Recovery has come to mean living a life beyond mental illness, and recovery orientation is policy in many countries. The aims of this study were to investigate what staff say they do to support recovery and to identify what they perceive as barriers and facilitators associated with providing recovery-oriented support. Data collection included ten focus groups with multidisciplinary clinicians (n = 34) and team leaders (n = 31), and individual interviews with clinicians (n = 18), team leaders (n = 6) and senior managers (n = 8). The identified core category was Competing Priorities, with staff identifying conflicting system priorities that influence how recovery-oriented practice is implemented. Three sub-categories were: Health Process Priorities, Business Priorities, and Staff Role Perception. Efforts to transform services towards a recovery orientation require a whole-systems approach.

BackgroundMany large studies have complex advisory committee structures, yet there is no empirical evidence regarding their optimal composition, scope and contribution. The aim of this study was to inform the committee and advice infrastructure for future research studies.MethodsIn the context of a five-year study funded by the UK National Institute for Health Research, three advisory committees were formed. In addition, advice was obtained from individual experts. All recommendations received in the start-up phase (first seven months) of the study were recorded, along with the decision about implementation of the recommendation. A particular focus was on the impact of public involvement.ResultsA total of 172 recommendations were made, including 70 from 20 individual experts. The recommendations were grouped into five emergent themes: Scientific, Pragmatic, Resources, Committee and Collaboration. Most recommendations related to strengthening existing components or adding new components to the study protocol. Very few recommendations either proposed removing study components or contradicted other recommendations. Three 'implementation criteria' were identified: scientific value, pragmatic feasibility, and paradigmatic consistency. 103 (60%) of recommendations were implemented and 25 (15%) were not implemented. The benefits identified by the research team were improved quality and confidence, and the costs were increased cognitive demands, protocol revision time, and slower progress.ConclusionsThe findings are discussed in the context of the wider literature on public involvement in research. Six recommendations are identified. First, have a clear rationale for each advisory committee expressed as terms of reference, and consider the best balance between committees and individual consultation with experts. Second, an early concern of committees is inter-committee communication, so consider cross-representation and copying minutes between committees. Third, match the scope of advisory committees to the study, with a less complex advisory structure for studies with more finalised designs. Fourth, public involvement has a mixed impact, and relies on relationships of trust, which take time to develop. Fifth, carefully consider the match between the scientific paradigm applied in the study and the contribution of different types of knowledge and expertise, and how this will impact on possibilities for taking on advice. Finally, responding to recommendations uses up research team resources, and the costs can be reduced by using the three implementation criteria.

IntroductionPolicy drivers in mental health to address personal recovery, stigma and poor physical health indicate that new service solutions are required. This study aimed to understand how connections to people, places and activities were utilised by individuals with severe mental illness (SMI) to benefit health and wellbeing.MethodsA five-module mixed-methods design was undertaken in two study sites. Data were collected from 150 network-mapping interviews and 41 in-depth follow-up interviews with people with SMI; in-depth interviews with 30 organisation stakeholders and 12 organisation leaders; and 44 telephone interviews with practitioners. We undertook a three-stage synthesis process including independent lived experience feedback, and a patient and public involvement team participated in tool design, data collection, analysis and write-up.ResultsThree personal network types were found in our study using the community health network approach: diverse and active; family and stable; formal and sparse. Controlled for other factors we found only four variables significantly associated with which network type a participant had: living alone or not; housing status; formal education; long-term sickness or disability. Diagnosis was not a factor. These variables are challenging to address but they do point to potential for network change. The qualitative interviews with people with SMI provided further understanding of connection-building and resource utilisation. We explored individual agency across each network type, and identified recognition of the importance and value of social support and active connection management alongside the risks of isolation, even for those most affected by mental illness. We identified tensions in personal networks, be that relationships with practitioners or families, dealing with the impact of stigma, or frustrations of not being in employment, which all impact on network resources and well-being. The value of connectedness within personal networks of people, place and activity for supporting recovery was evident in shaping identity, providing meaning to life and sense of belonging, gaining access to new resources, structuring routines and helping individuals ‘move on’ in their recovery journey.Health-care practitioners recognised that social factors were important in recovery but reported system-level barriers (workload, administrative bureaucracy, limited contact time with clients) in addressing these issues fully. Even practitioners working in third-sector services whose remit involved increasing clients’ social connection faced restrictions due to being evaluated by outcome criteria that limited holistic recovery-focused practices. Service providers were keen to promote recovery-focused approaches. We found contrasts between recovery ideology within mental health policy and recovery practice on the ground. In particular, the social aspects of supporting people with SMI are often underprioritised in the health-care system. In a demanding and changing context, strategic multiagency working was seen as crucial but we found few examples of embedded multisector organisation partnerships.ConclusionWhile our exploratory study has limitations, findings suggest potential for people with SMI to be supported to become more active managers of their personal networks to support well-being regardless of current network type. The health and social care system does not currently deliver multiagency integrated solutions to support SMI and social recovery.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Purpose -The integration of peer support workers with lived experience of mental health problems into existing mental health services has been found beneficial in some ways. However, some peer support workers have experienced unique challenges in terms of role confusion and limited opportunities for networking and support. Qualitative research and evaluation regarding peer support worker integration is limited. This paper aims to address this issue.Design/methodology/approach -The current paper presents a qualitative evaluation of the experiences of two peer support specialist (PSS) workers and their managers within one UK mental health trust. The PSS workers and managers were interviewed individually using a semi-structured format. Thematic analysis was applied to the interview transcripts.Findings -In agreement with prior research and evaluation, positive experiences and challenges were identified in relation to PSS employment, both for PSS workers and their teams. Overarching themes concern the PSS worker as ''other'', the PSS worker as a ''change agent'', and ''readiness for PSS worker employment''.Originality/value -The evaluation is limited by the small sample size but the findings could be used to inform the integration of PSS workers into other existing services. This evaluation begins to untangle some of the tensions around the integration process. Strategies to support PSS integration based on the recommendations of participants and the findings of the current evaluation are presented.

Over the last 10 years, the social inclusion agenda has been gaining momentum as a policy driver in mental health services. Prior to the seminal Social Exclusion Unit (SEU) report, Mental Health and Social Exclusion, there was a lack of awareness concerning the pervasive links between social exclusion and mental health problems. In the report, the SEU suggested that mental health practitioners themselves may actually be contributing to this social exclusion. This finding has been given limited coverage in both social inclusion literature and research. The current paper is a positioned commentary further exploring the relationship between practitioners and the social exclusion of mental health service users. A literature review was conducted in order to identify themes among factors which appear to moderate and contribute to this relationship. These factors are presented and implications for inclusive practice are explored.