Peer work in Australian mental health policy: What ‘problems’ are we solving and to what effect(s)?

Inclusion as Assimilation, Integration, or Co-optation? A Post-Structural Analysis of Inclusion as Produced Through Mental Health Research on Peer Support

“…Ethics approval was provided by Curtin University ethics office (HRE2019-0152) as part of a larger project exploring the politics of PS inclusion within mental health systems ( Sinclair et al, in press ; Sinclair et al, 2023 ).…”

Community-based models of care facilitating the recovery of people living with persistent and complex mental health needs: a systematic review and narrative synthesis

“…Our review suggests the need for a sophisticated response that likely requires a multidisciplinary team approach, to respond and adapt to the context within which a MoC operates. While MoCs need specific design parameters for successful implementation, they also need to be able to incorporate consumer perspectives, ideally through co-design, to enhance recovery outcomes ( 122 ). Therefore, we recommend that (1) further research be conducted into outcomes associated with the MoCs we identified, ensuring that all three types of outcomes are assessed; (2) future research into these models should prioritize a consistent set of reliable and valid outcome measures such as the RAS and MANSA and attend to other identified methodological limitations so that meta-analyses can be conducted; (3) practice guidelines should recommend team-based models of care in line with this evidence, such as ICM and ICT, while enhancements to team-based MoCs should particularly focus on supporting personal recovery; (4) when developing new service models and improving existing service models for this consumer group, consumer goals and priorities should be a specific focus, to help clinicians challenge unhelpful ways of relating to consumers, and (5) further research should attend more closely to timeframes, including extended follow-up phases, to understand recovery impacts over time.…”