Pathways to Recovery (PTR): Impact of peer-led group participation on mental health recovery outcomes.

Abstract

This initial research is promising for establishing PTR as an important tool for facilitating recovery using a peer-led group format. The provision of peer-led service has been emphasized as critical to integrating consumers' perspectives in recovery-based mental health services. Given the current federal funding stream for peer services, continued research into PTR and other peer-led services becomes more important.

Uses of strength-based interventions for people with serious mental illness: A critical review

“…This highlights the need for a clearer specification of strengths-based intervention, and it is therefore reassuring that, in the present sample, six out of the seven selected studies (Barry et al, 2003;Björkman et al, 2002;Fukui et al, 2010;Fukui et al, 2012;Green et al, 2013;Mireau & Inch, 2009) included descriptions of what strengths-based practices entail. For example, they cited the Pathways to Recovery (Ridgway & Bledsoe, 2002, cited in Fukui et al, 2010 (2012) study, case management teams were able to reach high SMCM fidelity, which meant that SMCM was being implemented ( In one of the later studies, the engagement of peer supporters working with professionals in providing a strengths-based group programme highlighted an important new development (Green et al, 2013).…”

“…Two studies have assessed the impact of Pathways to Recovery (Ridgway & Bledsoe, 2002) support groups on participants-one on peer-led groups (Fukui et al, 2010) and the other on groups co-led by a peer counsellor and a non-peer counsellor (Green et al, 2013). Both studies found considerable improvements across multiple domains including hope, self-efficacy, and social support.…”

“…Björkman et al (2002) found that the group receiving strengths-based case management had worse social network and symptom scores post-intervention when compared with the group receiving standard care. The outcomes in relation to symptom improvement were also inconclusive (Barry et al , 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 F o r P e e r R e v i e w 2003; Björkman et al, 2002;Fukui et al, 2010;Green et al, 2013). In an earlier commentary, due to the seriousness of psychiatric symptomatology such as suicidality and persecutory delusions, Taylor (2006) strongly cautioned against using only a strengths-based approach completely isolated from medical treatment approaches.…”

“…Only one study's design achieved a 'strong' global rating (Green, Janoff, Yarborough, & Paulson, 2013). Three others were rated as 'moderate' (Barry, Zeber, Blow, & Valenstein, 2003;Björkman et al, 2002;Blow et al, 2000), and the other three as 'weak' (Fukui, Davidson, Holter, & Rapp, 2010;Fukui et al, 2012;Mireau & Inch, 2009). …”

“…(ii) increasing service satisfaction (Björkman et al, 2002); (iii) improving general attitudes with respect to recovery-relevant dimensions (e.g., self-esteem, self-efficacy, personal confidence, sense of hope, life satisfaction; Barry et al, 2003;Fukui et al, 2010;Green et al, 2013); (iv) facilitating greater goal attainment (i.e., improving employment and educational outcomes; (Green et al, 2013); and (v) general increased utilisation of services (Barry et al, 2003;Mireau & Inch, 2009). In Mireau and Inch's (2009) study, these positive changes were reflected in increased job satisfaction and improved staff morale: 'Optimism and hopefulness directed toward the client is contagious, with counsellors having increased job satisfaction and morale while clients experience success in achieving their goals' (Mireau & Inch, 2009, p.68).…”