Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-55b6f6c457-85hf2 Total loading time: 0.609 Render date: 2021-09-25T19:43:34.948Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Typology of modifications to peer support work for adults with mental health problems: systematic review

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 January 2020

Ashleigh Charles*
Affiliation:
Research Assistant, School of Health Sciences, Institute of Mental Health, University of Nottingham, UK
Dean Thompson
Affiliation:
Research Fellow, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, UK
Rebecca Nixdorf
Affiliation:
Research Assistant, Department of Psychiatry, Universitätsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf, Germany
Grace Ryan
Affiliation:
Research Fellow, Centre of Global Mental Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, UK
Donat Shamba
Affiliation:
Researcher, Department of Health Systems, Impact Evaluation and Policy, Ifakara Health Institute, Tanzania
Jasmine Kalha
Affiliation:
Centre for Mental Health Law and Policy, Indian Law Society, India
Galia Moran
Affiliation:
Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Humanities and Social Science, Ben Gurion University of the Negev, Israel
Ramona Hiltensperger
Affiliation:
Research Assistant, Department of Psychiatry II, Ulm University, Germany
Candelaria Mahlke
Affiliation:
Researcher, Department of Psychiatry, Universitätsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf, Germany
Bernd Puschner
Affiliation:
Professor, Department of Psychiatry II, Ulm University, Germany
Julie Repper
Affiliation:
Programme Director of ImROC, Nottingham, UK
Mike Slade
Affiliation:
Professor of Mental Health Recovery and Social Inclusion, School of Health Sciences, Institute of Mental Health, University of Nottingham, UK
Richard Mpango
Affiliation:
Researcher, Butabika National Referral Hospital, Uganda
*
Correspondence: Ashleigh Charles. Email: ashleigh.charles@nottingham.ac.uk
Rights & Permissions[Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background

Peer 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.

Aims

To conduct a systematic review identifying a typology of modifications to peer support work for adults with mental health problems.

Method

We 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.

Results

A 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.

Conclusions

Peer 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.

Type
Review article
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 2020

Recovery is an approach that focuses on supporting people with mental health conditions to live as well as possible,Reference Milner, Crawford, Edgley, Hare Duke and Slade1 whether or not symptoms remain.Reference Slade, Amering, Farkas, Hamilton, O'Hagan and Panther2 Recovery-orientation has emerged as a global mental health priority for example in the World Health Organization Mental Health Action Plan 2013–2020,3 and is national mental health policy in many countries such as the UK.4 Peer support workers (PSWs) are a visible manifestation of a recovery orientationReference Leamy, Bird, Le Boutillier, Williams and Slade5,Reference Corrigan, Larson, Smelson and Andra6 involving people with lived experience of mental health problems helping others to recover from mental health conditions. PSW roles are being implemented internationally, and increasingly in lower-resource settings as a cost-effective approach to reduce the burden of mental health problems,Reference Camacho, Ntais, Jones, Riste, Morriss and Lobban7,Reference Sikander, Lazarus, Bangash, Fuhr, Weobong and Krishna8 to address the mental healthcare gap,Reference Pathare, Brazinova and Levav9,Reference Patel, Collins, Copeland, Kakuma, Katontoka and Lamichhane10 and as a form of ‘task-sharing’Reference Pathare, Brazinova and Levav9 to help support the service delivery of already strained and overwhelmed mental health systems. Overall, peer support has been identified as a central approach to recovery,Reference Roberts and Boardman11 and is endorsed by psychiatrists.Reference Gambino, Pavlo and Ross12

Some systematic reviews identify the limited evidence base relating to PSWs,Reference Lloyd-Evans, Mayo-Wilson, Harrison, Istead, Brown and Pilling13 but overall the weight of evidence indicates positive outcomes including empowerment,Reference Van Gestel-Timmermans, Brouwers, Van Assen and Van Nieuwenhuizen14 hope,Reference Schrank, Bird, Rudnick and Slade15,Reference Cook, Copeland, Jonikas, Hamilton, Razzano and Grey16 social relationships,Reference Lucchi, Chiaf, Placentino and Scarsato17,Reference Arbour and Rose18 self-efficacy,Reference Mahlke, Priebe, Heumann, Daubmann, Wegscheider and Bock19 recovery,Reference Chinman, Oberman, Hanusa, Cohen, Salyers and Twamley20 symptomatologyReference Rivera, Sullivan and Valenti21 and reduced readmissions to acute care.Reference Johnson, Lamb, Marston, Osborn, Mason and Henderson22 PSWs are an increasingly common member of the multidisciplinary clinical team, interacting with other professionals yet being asked to retain a ‘lived experience’ identity. For mental health professionals, this can create dilemmas in terms of relationships, issues of confidentiality, ethics, decision-making and role clarity.Reference Collins, Firth and Shakespeare23 In order to work effectively with PSWs, a clear understanding of the role and how it is modified in different clinical populations and settings is needed. The aim of this review was to characterise pre-planned modifications (that were planned or allowed for in the design of the intervention arising from decisions made before implementation) and unplanned modifications (made because of unforeseen changes to the intervention that occur after implementation) to mental health peer support work for adults with mental health problems. The objectives were to develop a typology of types of modifications, to characterise the rationales for these modifications, and to identify modifications made specifically in low- and middle-income settings.

Method

The protocol of this systematic review was developed in accordance with PRISMA guidelinesReference Moher, Liberati, Tetzlaff and Altman24 and registered on PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews) on 24 July 2018: CRD42018094832.

Eligibility criteria

We included studies about PSWs supporting adults aged 18 years or older with a primary diagnosis of mental illness, and those that explicitly identified modifications including changes, variations or adaptations made before (‘pre-planned’) or while (‘unplanned’) implementing a PSW intervention. A modification could be identified in various ways, such as changes to the intervention manual or to the role of the PSW, and an inclusive approach to inclusion was used. We excluded studies that: did not explicitly refer to modifications; had fewer than three participants; and studies that reported on mutual aid, peer-run organisations, naturally occurring peer support, peer navigation interventions and peer support delivered exclusively online. No studies were excluded on the basis of comparators, control conditions, service setting or clinical diagnosis. Included study designs were randomised controlled trials, controlled before and after studies, cohort studies, case–control studies and qualitative studies. Studies were included if reported in English, French, German, Hebrew, Luganda, Spanish or Swahili (chosen as languages in Using Peer Support In Developing Empowering Mental Health Services (UPSIDES) study sites), with a date of publication on or before July 2018.

Information sources

Six data sources were used: (a) electronic bibliographic databases (n = 11) searched were Medline (OVID), Embase (OVID), Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (EBSCHO), PsycINFO (OVID), Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar, OpenGrey, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses A&I, African Journals OnLine, and Scientific Electronic Library Online; (b) table of contents (n = 9) of International Journal of Social Psychiatry, Social Psychiatry and Epidemiology, Psychiatric Services, Journal of Recovery in Mental Health, Journal of Mental Health, Journal of Mental Health Training, Education and Practice, Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal and BJPsych International (chosen as publishers of PSW studies); (c) conference proceedings of European Network for Mental Health Service Evaluation (n = 12 conferences since 1994) and Refocus on Recovery (n = 4 conferences since 2010) (chosen as recovery-relevant academic conferences with available proceedings); (d) websites (n = 10): http://peersforprogress.org; https://together-uk.org; https://mentalhealth.org.uk; www.mind.org; www.mihinnovation.net; www.inaops.org; www.peerzone.info; https://cpr.bu.edu; https://peersupportcanada.ca; https://medicine.yale.edu/psychiatry/prch/ (chosen as they host PSW materials); (e) a preliminary list of included studies was sent to experts (n = 36) requesting additional eligible studies; (f) forward-citation tracking was performed on all included studies using Scopus and backward-citation tracking by hand-searching the reference lists of included studies.

Search strategy

The search strategy was adapted from a published systematic review concerning peer support for people based in statutory mental health services.Reference Pitt, Lowe, Hill, Prictor, Hetrick and Ryan25 The search strategy was modified for each database, and an example of the search strategy used for Medline is shown in supplementary data 1 available at https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.2019.264. All searches were conducted from database inception until July 2018.

Study selection

After removing duplicates, the titles and abstracts of all identified citations were screened for relevance against the inclusion criteria by D.T., with a randomly selected 5% sample independently assessed by R.N. Concordance between the two reviewers was 91%. Full texts were single-screened by D.T. and R.N. then independently extracted data from 55% of included publications, so a randomly selected 10% were independently extracted by both researchers, who discussed their data extraction to check for adequate agreement.

Data abstraction

For each included publication, information was extracted on (a) study characteristics including study design, study participant inclusion and exclusion criteria, and sample size; (b) mode of intervention delivery; (c) where the intervention was performed including country, and service setting; and (d) pre-planned and unplanned modifications made to the peer support work, and the rationale for planned and unplanned modifications. The data abstraction table is shown in supplementary data 2.

Quality assessment

The Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) was used to assess the quality of eligible studies. CASP checklists do not provide an overall scoring, so a scoring system used in a previous systematic reviewReference Matthews, Ellis, Furness and Hing26 was applied. Each CASP item rated ‘yes’ scored 1 point and each item rated ‘no’ scored 0 points. The percentage score for the 10-item CASP randomised controlled trial checklist, the 10-item CASP qualitative checklist, the 12-item CASP cohort checklist and the 11-item CASP case control checklist was calculated, with studies scoring ≥60% graded as good quality, studies scoring 45% to 59% graded as fair quality, and studies scoring below 45% graded as poor.Reference Kennelly, Handler, Kennelly and Peacock27,Reference Adhia, Bussey, Ribeiro, Tumilty and Milosavljevic28

Synthesis of results

A three-stage narrative synthesis was conducted on included papers,Reference Popay, Roberts, Sowden, Petticrew, Arai and Rodgers29 modified in line with recent reviews.Reference Rennick-Egglestone, Morgan, Llewellyn-Beardsley, Ramsay, McGranahan and Gillard30,Reference Llewellyn-Beardsley, Rennick-Egglestone, Callard, Crawford, Farkas and Hui31 The four analysts (A.C., R.N., M.S. and D.T.) came from varied professional (nursing, psychology) and disciplinary (health services research, social science, psychotherapy) backgrounds. In stage 1 (developing a preliminary synthesis), modifications and rationales for modifications identified in included studies were synthesised. Findings were tabulated and an initial coding framework was developed, through thematic analysis, to group modifications that were pre-planned and unplanned, and rationales for both types of modification. Vote counting of number of papers identifying each theme was performed, the data were interpreted as providing an initial indication of strength and ordering of themes. This method could have been interpreted as providing an indication of themes more amenable to change rather than strength, however, for the purpose of this paper, vote counting was used to determine the strength of themes. A preliminary draft of the modifications and rationale for modifications was developed and refined by analysts. In stage 2 (comparison between studies), the relationships within and between studies were explored. Identified modifications and rationales were compared between higher-income versus lower-income countries and pre-planned versus unplanned modifications. In stage 3 (assessing the robustness of the synthesis), the findings from subgroup analysis of only good-quality studies was compared with the framework from all included studies.

Results

Included studies

The search identified 15 300 studies, from which 39 were included. The flow diagram is shown in Fig. 1 and the complete data abstraction table including all references is shown in supplementary data 2.

Fig. 1 Flow diagram of the study selection process.

The 39 included studies were predominantly conducted in higher-income countries, comprising USA (n = 25), UK (n = 5), Canada (n = 4), Australia and USA (n = 1), Australia (n = 2) and Republic of Ireland (n = 1), with a single study conducted in an upper-middle income country (Libya). Designs comprised qualitative (n = 12), randomised controlled trial (n = 13), pre–post (n = 10), case–control (n = 3) and cohort (n = 1).

Stage 1 (developing a preliminary synthesis)

Six types of modifications to peer support work were identified, as shown in Table 1. The coded text including detailed examples from the included publications is shown in supplementary data 3.

Table 1 Types of modifications made to peer support work

PSW, peer support worker.

Five types of rationale for modifications to peer support work were identified, as shown in Table 2. The coded text including detailed examples from included publications is shown in supplementary data 4.

Table 2 Types of rationales for modifications made to peer support work

Stage 2 (comparison between studies)

Overall, 22 (56%) of 39 included studies reported only pre-planned modifications, 10 (26%) reported only unplanned modifications and 7 (18%) studies reported both pre-planned and unplanned modifications. Including only the 22 studies reporting pre-planned instances of modifications did not lead to deletion of any of the strongest themes. However, the ordering changed, with the four strongest themes being: role expectations; type of contact; role extension; and workplace support for PSWs. Including only the ten studies reporting unplanned modifications in the framework did not markedly change the ordering, with the three strongest themes being: role expectations; initial training; and role extension.

Across all included studies, 38 (97.4%) were conducted in high-income countries and 1 (2.6%) in a low-middle income country. Including only the 38 studies conducted in high-income countries did not change the strength or ordering of themes. Including the one study conducted in a low-middle income country led to the deletion of four themes: type of contact; role extension; workplace support for PSWs; and initial recruitment. The two strongest themes in the low-middle income study setting were: role expectations and initial training, with the subthemes of: materials used with service users; structure; and topics covered.

A total of 36 (92%) of the 39 included studies reported a rationale for modifications, comprising 22 (61.1%) providing rationales for planned modifications, 9 (25%) for unplanned modifications and 5 (13.8%) studies reporting rationales for both pre-planned and unplanned modifications. Including only the 22 studies reporting rationales for planned modifications in the framework did not lead to any changes to the ordering or deletion of any themes, with the three strongest themes being: to provide best possible peer support; to best meet service user needs; and to meet organisational needs.

Including only the nine studies reporting rationales for unplanned modifications, the ordering changed slightly, with to provide best possible peer support; to meet organisational needs; and to maximise role clarity emerging as the strongest themes. A total of 35 (97.2%) studies were conducted in high-income countries and 1 (2.8%) in a low- or middle-income country. Including only the 35 studies conducted in high-income countries did not change the order or strength of themes in the rationale framework. Including the one study conducted in a low-middle income country led to the deletion of three themes: to best meet service user needs; to maximise role clarity; and to address socioeconomic issues. The strongest themes were to provide best possible peer support and to meet organisational needs. The subthemes included: to match on cultural aspects; to enhance service use of self-management strategies when not with PSW; to meet organisational resources; and to meet infrastructure of care.

Stage 3 (assessing for the robustness of synthesis)

The quality rating of studies is shown in supplementary data 5. Studies were rated as good quality (n = 28), fair quality (n = 5) or poor quality (n = 6). Excluding the 11 studies rated as poor or fair quality did not greatly influence the content and strength-of-theme ordering for either modifications or rationales. The three strongest modification themes remained role expectations; initial training; and type of contact, with only workplace support for PSWs moving up in the order to joint third strongest theme. The order and strength of themes did not change markedly in the rationale framework, with to provide best possible peer support; to meet organisational needs; and to best meet service user needs being the strongest themes.

Discussion

This systematic review and narrative synthesis identified a typology of five rationales and six types of modifications to formal mental health peer support work when implemented in diverse settings. Insufficient evidence was available to identify types or rationales of modifications specific to lower-resource settings. There was no evidence of study quality having an impact on the findings, and most types of modification occurred both as planned and unplanned modifications.

Peer support is a complex intervention. Formal reporting of the intervention would support understanding of modifications. The Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) reporting guidelines identify how to report complex interventions to allow reliable implementation and replication.Reference Hoffman, Glasziou, Boutron, Milne, Perera and Moher32 Item 10 of the TIDieR checklist is ‘Modification: If the intervention was modified during the course of the study, describe the changes (what, why, when and how)’ – changes which in this review were called unplanned modifications. Earlier TIDieR items involve a complete description of the intervention, covering what in this review was called planned modifications. As none of the included studies used the TIDieR reporting guidelines, descriptions of modifications and their rationale were inconsistent, so underreporting of modifications is probable, which would lead to not all relevant PSW studies with modifications being included.

No study was designed to anticipate unplanned modifications. In trial methodology, an adaptive trial design involves pre-planned modification of trial procedures based on interim analysis during the conduct of the trial.Reference Chow and Chang33 This design is an approach to reducing resource use, decreasing time to trial completion and improving the likelihood that trial results will be scientifically or clinically relevant.Reference Thorlund, Haggstrom, Park and Mills34 A key feature of adaptive designs is that modifications are expected, and based on continuous learning as data accumulates during the trial. None of the included studies used an adaptive design, even though this is a relevant approach. For example, adaptive enrichment occurs when interim analysis shows that a treatment has more promising results in one subgroup of patients, in which case the eligibility criteria are modified to investigate the efficacy of the intervention in that subgroup.Reference Ning and Huang35 The identified unplanned adaptation of modifications to the target group could be more effectively managed by adopting an adaptive enrichment strategy.

The highest proportion of unplanned to pre-planned modifications occurred for the initial training modification. PSW training programmes have developed internationally in an uncoordinated way, including both accredited and non-accredited courses. Networks are emerging such as the International Association of Peer Specialists (www.inaops.org) and the Global Network of Peer Support (www.peersforprogress.org), but as yet there are no widely agreed consensus statements on the key non-modifiable and modifiable components of PSW initial training. Established approaches to differentiating between what can and cannot be modified could be followed.Reference Toney, Knight, Hamill, Taylor, Henderson and Crowther36

Strengths and limitations

The strengths of this review include the multilanguage and systematic strategy used, and the robustness of methodology including multiple analysts and quality appraisal of studies. Several limitations of this review can be identified. First, the quality rating tool used in the synthesis excluded few studies, and resulted in minimal changes to the ordering of themes. Other critical appraisal tools could also be considered or used in combination with CASP in future studies to enhance robustness of evaluation. Second, the absence of established peer support brands made provenance and modifications difficult to establish, as has been found with other complex interventions.Reference Wallace, Bird, Leamy, Bacon, Le Boutillier and Janosik37 Developing named manualised approaches to implementing peer support would make it easier to identify when future studies are replicating versus adapting the approach. Third, meaningful comparisons between modifications made in higher- versus lower-income settings was not possible because only one non-high-income setting study was included. In addition, studies conducted in different global jurisdictions including the global south were not located or included. More searching of grey literature, modifications to the inclusion criteria and a broader expert consultation might have identified studies from lower-income settings and a wider range of countries, for example ChinaReference Fan, Ma, Ma, Xu, Lamberti and Caine38 and Uganda,Reference Hall, Baillie, Basangwa, Atukunda, White, Jain, Orr and Read39 or related studies such as the ReDeAmericas Program in Latin America (www.cugmhp.org/programs/redeamericas).

Implications

The review provides an evidence-based framework for systematic consideration of different types of candidate modification to peer support implementation. An appropriate approach would involve considering each rationale in turn, framed as a question, for example ‘What needs to be modified to provide best possible peer support in our setting?’ Where this process suggests that modification may be indicated, the modification types identified in relation to the rationale provide candidate changes to consider in relation to each question. This approach is likely to lead to a more systematic consideration of whether and how to modify the approach to peer support to different settings, especially when informed by an understanding of influences on implementation.Reference Ibrahim, Thompson, Nixdorf, Kalha, Mpango and Moran40

Identifying the wide range of modifications also has research implications. Evaluative research to identify the non-modifiable versus modifiable components is needed, to differentiate between desirable local adaptations versus non-desirable changes to the core components of peer support. Evaluations of peer support implementation identify that differing organisational cultures lead to differences in role expectations,Reference Ibrahim, Thompson, Nixdorf, Kalha, Mpango and Moran40 and issues of professionalism and practice boundaries are common.Reference Gillard, Edwards, Gibson, Owen and Wright41 Identifying when a modification is sufficiently large as to mean it is no longer a peer support role is an important future research focus. A second research priority is understanding when and where modifications are needed for implementation of peer support work, such as in work with asylum seekers and refugees,Reference Turrini, Purgato, Acarturk, Anttila, Au and Ballette42 and work in different types of clinical settings and populations. For example, service settings of hospital versus community and clinical population may be a focus for future research. The UPSIDES study is addressing the challenge of investigating how peer support work can be implemented in settings that differ in income levels, through implementation research and a randomised controlled trial in sites in Ulm (Germany), Hamburg (Germany), Kampala (Uganda), Dar es Salaam (Tanzania), Beer Sheva (Israel) and Pune (India). As interest in peer support work is growing internationally, evidence-based approaches to modifying the PSW role to meet local needs while retaining role integrity become essential.

Funding

UPSIDES received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme under Grant Agreement No 779263. M.S. acknowledges the support of the Center for Mental Health and Substance Abuse, University of South-Eastern Norway and the NIHR Nottingham Biomedical Research Centre. This publication reflects only the authors’ views. The Commission is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information it contains. The funding body had no role in the design of the study and in writing the manuscript.

Acknowledgements

The study Using Peer Support In Developing Empowering Mental Health Services (UPSIDES) is a multicentre collaboration between the Department for Psychiatry and Psychotherapy II at Ulm University, Germany (B.P., coordinator); the Institute of Mental Health at University of Nottingham, UK (M.S.); the Department of Psychiatry at University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Germany (C.M.); Butabika National Referral Hospital, Uganda (David Basangwa); the Centre for Global Mental Health at London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, UK (G.R.); Ifakara Health Institute, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania (D.S.); the Department of Social Work at Ben Gurion University of the Negev, Beer Sheva, Israel (G.M.); and the Centre for Mental Health Law and Policy, Pune, India (J.K.).

Data availability

All collected data are included as supplementary information.

Author contributions

Conception and design of study: D.T., R.N. and M.S. Acquisition of data: A.C., D.T. and M.S. Analysis and/or interpretation of data for the work: A.C., D.T., R.N., G.R., D.S., J.K., G.M., R.H., C.M., B.P., J.R., M.S. and R.M. Drafting of the manuscript: A.C. and M.S. Revising the manuscript critically for important intellectual content: A.C., D.T., R.N., G.R., D.S., J.K., G.M., R.H., C.M., B.P., J.R., M.S. and R.M. Approval of the version of the manuscript to be published: A.C., D.T., R.N., G.R., D.S., J.K., G.M., R.H., C.M., B.P., J.R., M.S. and R.M. Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work: A.C., D.T., R.N., G.R., D.S., J.K., G.M., R.H., C.M., B.P., J.R., M.S. and R.M.

Supplementary material

Supplementary material is available online at https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.2019.264.

Footnotes

Declaration of interest: None.

*

Joint first authors.

**

Joint last authors.

References

1Milner, K, Crawford, P, Edgley, A, Hare Duke, L, Slade, M. The experiences of spirituality among adults with mental health difficulties: a qualitative systematic review. Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci 2019; May 3 (Epub ahead of print).Google ScholarPubMed
2Slade, M, Amering, M, Farkas, M, Hamilton, B, O'Hagan, M, Panther, G, et al. Uses and abuses of recovery: implementing recovery-oriented practices in mental health systems. World Psychiatry 2014; 13: 1220.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3World Health Organization. Mental Health Action Plan 2013–2020. WHO, 2013.Google Scholar
4Department of Health. The Journey to Recovery - The Government's Vision for Mental Health Care. Department of Health, 2001.Google Scholar
5Leamy, M, Bird, V, Le Boutillier, C, Williams, J, Slade, M. A conceptual framework for personal recovery in mental health: systematic review and narrative synthesis. Br J Psychiatry 2011; 199: 445–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6Corrigan, PW, Larson, JE, Smelson, D, Andra, M. Recovery, peer support and confrontation in services for people with mental illness and/or substance use disorder. Br J Psychiatry 2019; 214: 130–2.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7Camacho, E, Ntais, D, Jones, S, Riste, L, Morriss, R, Lobban, F, et al. Cost-effectiveness of structured group psychoeducation versus unstructured group support for bipolar disorder: results from a multi-centre pragmatic randomised controlled trial. J Affect Disord 2017; 211: 2736.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8Sikander, S, Lazarus, A, Bangash, O, Fuhr, D, Weobong, B, Krishna, R, et al. The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the peer-delivered Thinking Healthy Programme for perinatal depression in Pakistan and India: the SHARE study protocol for randomised controlled trials. Trials 2015; 16: 534.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9Pathare, S, Brazinova, A, Levav, I. Care gap: a comprehensive measure to quantify unmet needs in mental health. Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci 2018; 27: 463–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10Patel, V, Collins, PY, Copeland, J, Kakuma, R, Katontoka, S, Lamichhane, J, et al. The movement for global mental health. Br J Psychiatry 2011; 198: 8890.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11Roberts, G, Boardman, J. Understanding ‘recovery’. Adv Psychiatr Treatment 2013; 19: 400–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12Gambino, M, Pavlo, A, Ross, DA. Recovery in mind: perspectives from postgraduate psychiatric trainees. Acad Psychiatry 2016; 40: 481–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13Lloyd-Evans, B, Mayo-Wilson, E, Harrison, B, Istead, H, Brown, E, Pilling, S, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials of peer support for people with severe mental illness. BMC Psychiatry 2014; 14: 39.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14Van Gestel-Timmermans, H, Brouwers, E, Van Assen, M, Van Nieuwenhuizen, C. Effects of a peer-run course on recovery from serious mental illness: a randomized controlled trial. Psychiatr Serv 2012; 63: 5460.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15Schrank, B, Bird, V, Rudnick, A, Slade, M. Determinants, self-management strategies and interventions for hope in people with mental disorders: systematic search and narrative review. Soc Sci Med 2012; 74: 554–64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16Cook, JA, Copeland, ME, Jonikas, JA, Hamilton, MM, Razzano, LA, Grey, DD, et al. Results of a randomized controlled trial of mental illness self-management using Wellness Recovery Action Planning. Schizophr Bull 2012; 38: 881–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17Lucchi, F, Chiaf, E, Placentino, A, Scarsato, G. Programma FOR: a Recovery College in Italy. J Recovery Ment Health 2018; 1: 2937.Google Scholar
18Arbour, S, Rose, B. Improving relationships, lives and systems: the transformative power of a recovery college. J Recovery Ment Health 2018; 1: 16.Google Scholar
19Mahlke, C, Priebe, S, Heumann, K, Daubmann, A, Wegscheider, K, Bock, T. Effectiveness of one-to-one peer support for patients with severe mental illness–a randomised controlled trial. Eur Psychiatry 2017; 42: 103–10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20Chinman, M, Oberman, R, Hanusa, B, Cohen, A, Salyers, M, Twamley, E, et al. A Cluster randomized trial of adding peer specialists to intensive case management teams in the Veterans Health Administration. J Behav Health Serv Res 2013; 42: 109–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21Rivera, J, Sullivan, A, Valenti, S. Adding consumer-providers to intensive case management: does it improve outcome? Psychiatr Serv 2007; 58: 802–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22Johnson, S, Lamb, D, Marston, L, Osborn, D, Mason, O, Henderson, C, et al. Peer-supported self-management for people discharged from a mental health crisis team: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2018; 392: 409–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23Collins, R, Firth, L, Shakespeare, T. ‘Very much evolving’: a qualitative study of the views of psychiatrists about peer support workers. J Ment Health 2016; 25: 278–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24Moher, D, Liberati, A, Tetzlaff, J, Altman, DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Br Med J 2009; 339: 332–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25Pitt, V, Lowe, D, Hill, S, Prictor, M, Hetrick, SE, Ryan, R, et al. Consumer-providers of care for adult clients of statutory mental health services. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013; 3: CD004807.Google Scholar
26Matthews, W, Ellis, R, Furness, J, Hing, W. Classification of tendon matrix change using ultrasound imaging: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Med Biol 2018; 44: 2059–80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
27Kennelly, J. Methodological approach to assessing the evidence. In Reducing Racial/Ethnic Disparities in Reproductive and Perinatal Outcomes (eds Handler, A, Kennelly, J, Peacock, N): 719. Springer, 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
28Adhia, DB, Bussey, MD, Ribeiro, DC, Tumilty, S, Milosavljevic, S. Validity and reliability of palpation-digitization for non-invasive kinematic measurement – a systematic review. Man Ther 2013; 18: 2634.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
29Popay, J, Roberts, H, Sowden, A, Petticrew, M, Arai, L, Rodgers, M, et al. Guidance on the Conduct of Narrative Synthesis in Systematic Reviews. Results of an ESRC Funded Research Project. University of Lancaster, 2006.Google Scholar
30Rennick-Egglestone, S, Morgan, K, Llewellyn-Beardsley, J, Ramsay, A, McGranahan, R, Gillard, S, et al. Mental health recovery narratives and their impact on recipients: systematic review and narrative synthesis. Can J Psychiatry 2019; 64: 669–79.Google ScholarPubMed
31Llewellyn-Beardsley, J, Rennick-Egglestone, S, Callard, F, Crawford, P, Farkas, M, Hui, A, et al. Characteristics of mental health recovery narratives: systematic review and narrative synthesis. PLoS One 2019; 14: e0214678.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
32Hoffman, T, Glasziou, P, Boutron, I, Milne, R, Perera, R, Moher, D, et al. Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. BMJ 2014; 348: g1687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
33Chow, S-C, Chang, M. Adaptive design methods in clinical trials – a review. Orphanet J Rare Dis 2008; 3: 11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
34Thorlund, K, Haggstrom, J, Park, J, Mills, E. Key design considerations for adaptive clinical trials: a primer for clinicians. BMJ 2018; 360: k698.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
35Ning, J, Huang, X. Response-adaptive randomization for clinical trials with adjustment for covariate imbalance. Stat Med 2010; 29: 1761–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
36Toney, R, Knight, J, Hamill, K, Taylor, A, Henderson, C, Crowther, A, et al. Development and evaluation of a Recovery College fidelity measure. Can J Psychiatry 2019; 64: 405–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
37Wallace, G, Bird, V, Leamy, M, Bacon, F, Le Boutillier, C, Janosik, M, et al. Service user experiences of REFOCUS: a process evaluation of a pro-recovery complex intervention. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 2016; 51: 1275–84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
38Fan, Y, Ma, N, Ma, L, Xu, W, Lamberti, JS, Caine, E. A community-based peer support service for persons with severe mental illness in China. BMC Psychiatry 2018; 18: 170.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
39Hall, C, Baillie, D, Basangwa, D, Atukunda, J. Brain Gain in Uganda: a case study of peer working as an adjunct to statutory mental health care in a low-income country. In Palgrave Handbook of Sociocultural Perspectives on Global Mental Health (eds White, R, Jain, S, Orr, D, Read, U): 633–55. Palgrave Macmillan, 2017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
40Ibrahim, N, Thompson, D, Nixdorf, R, Kalha, J, Mpango, R, Moran, G, et al. A systematic review of influences on implementation of peer support work for adults with mental health problems. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 2019; Jun 8 (Epub ahead of print; https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-019-01739-1).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
41Gillard, S, Edwards, C, Gibson, S, Owen, K, Wright, C. Introducing peer worker roles into UK mental health service teams: a qualitative analysis of the organisational benefits and challenges. BMC Health Serv Res 2013; 13: 188.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
42Turrini, G, Purgato, M, Acarturk, C, Anttila, M, Au, T, Ballette, F, et al. Efficacy and acceptability of psychosocial interventions in asylum seekers and refugees: systematic review and meta-analysis. Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci 2019; 28: 376–88.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Figure 0

Fig. 1 Flow diagram of the study selection process.

Figure 1

Table 1 Types of modifications made to peer support work

Figure 2

Table 2 Types of rationales for modifications made to peer support work

Supplementary material: PDF

Charles et al. supplementary material

Charles et al. supplementary material 1

Download Charles et al. supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 227 KB
Supplementary material: File

Charles et al. supplementary material

Charles et al. supplementary material 2

Download Charles et al. supplementary material(File)
File 34 KB
Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.
You have Access
4
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Typology of modifications to peer support work for adults with mental health problems: systematic review
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Typology of modifications to peer support work for adults with mental health problems: systematic review
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Typology of modifications to peer support work for adults with mental health problems: systematic review
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *