Search

Introduction: Associations between structural inequalities and health are well established. However, there is limited work examining this link in relation to mental health, or that centres public perspectives. This study explores people's experience and sense‐making of inequality in their daily lives, with particular consideration of impacts on mental health. Methods: We conducted a peer research study. Participants had to live in one of two London Boroughs and have an interest in inequalities and mental health. Using social media, newsletters, local organisations and our peer researchers' contacts, we recruited 30 participants who took photos representing their experience of inequality and discussed them during semi‐structured interviews. Data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. Results: Three themes were identified in this study: (1) inequalities are unjust, multilayered and intertwined with mental health. Accounts demonstrated a deep understanding of inequalities and their link to mental health outcomes, describing inequalities as 'suffering' and 'not good for anyone'. Financial, housing, immigration and healthcare problems exacerbated poor mental health, with racism, gender‐based violence and job loss also contributing factors for both poor mental health and experiences of inequality; (2) inequalities exclude and have far‐reaching mental health consequences, impacting personal sense of belonging and perceived societal value and (3) moving forwards—addressing long‐standing inequality and poor public mental health necessitated coping and resilience strategies that are often unacknowledged and undervalued by support systems. Conclusion: Lived experience expertise was central in this study, creating an innovative methodological approach. To improve public mental health, we must address the everyday, painful structural inequalities experienced by many as commonplace and unfair. New policies and strategies must be found that involve communities, redistributing resources and power, building on a collective knowledge base, to coproduce actions combatting inequalities and improving population mental health. Patient or Public Contribution: This study was peer‐led, designed and carried out by researchers who had experiences of poor mental health. Six authors of the paper worked as peer researchers on this study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Legal problems can be cause and consequence of ill‐health and homelessness, necessitating efforts to integrate responses to these challenges. How to respond to legal issues within the context of health services for people who are homeless is though unclear. Groundswell piloted providing legal support to peer advocates (who have current or past experience of homelessness) and clients currently homeless in addition to their health‐focused work. A participatory action‐research design evaluated the emerging programme. Groundswell staff, both researchers and those involved in service delivery, co‐led the research alongside an external researcher. Qualitative methods were used to understand the experiences of legal support. We interviewed peer advocates and volunteers (n = 8), Groundswell clients (n = 3) and sector stakeholders (n = 3). Interviews were linked to regular reflective recorded meetings (n = 7) where Groundswell staff and researchers discussed the programme and the evaluation. Data were analysed thematically. The findings focus on three themes. First, peer advocates' and clients' legal needs involve an experience of being overwhelmed by system complexity. Second, the legal support to peer advocates aided in brokering and signposting to other legal support, in the context of a supportive organisational culture. Third, support to clients can be effective, although the complexity of legal need undermines potential for sustainable responses. In conclusion, legal support for peer advocates should be developed by Groundswell and considered by other similar agencies. Legal support to people who are currently street homeless requires significant resources and so health‐focused third‐sector organisations maybe unable to offer effective support. Other modes of integration should be pursued. Findings also have implications for how the third sector relates to the government agencies implicated in the legal challenges facing people who are homeless. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives To develop user-generated quality standards for young people with mental health problems in primary care using a participatory research model. Methods 50 young people aged 16-25 from community settings and primary care participated in focus groups and interviews about their views and experiences of seeking help for mental health problems in primary care, cofacilitated by young service users and repeated to ensure respondent validation. A second group of young people also aged 16-25 who had sought help for any mental health problem from primary care or secondary care within the last 5 years were trained as focus groups cofacilitators (n=12) developed the quality standards from the qualitative data and participated in four nominal groups (n=28). Results 46 quality standards were developed and ranked by young service users. Agreement was defined as 100% of scores within a two-point region. Group consensus existed for 16 quality standards representing the following aspects of primary care: better advertising and information (three); improved competence through mental health training and skill mix within the practice (two); alternatives to medication (three); improved referral protocol (three); and specific questions and reassurances (five). Alternatives to medication and specific questions and reassurances are aspects of quality which have not been previously reported. Conclusions We have demonstrated the feasibility of using participatory research methods in order to develop user-generated quality standards. The development of patient-generated quality standards may offer a more formal method of incorporating the views of service users into quality improvement initiatives. This method can be adapted for generating quality standards applicable to other patient groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]