Search

Abstract Recovery Colleges (RCs) are learning-based mental health recovery communities, located globally. However, evidence on RC effectiveness outside Western, educated, industrialised, rich, and democratic (WEIRD) countries is limited. This study aimed to evaluate associations between cultural characteristics and RC fidelity, to understand how culture impacts RC operation. Service managers from 169 RCs spanning 28 WEIRD and non-WEIRD countries assessed the fidelity using the RECOLLECT Fidelity Measure, developed based upon key RC operation components. Hofstede’s cultural dimension scores were entered as predictors in linear mixed-effects regression models, controlling for GDP spent on healthcare and Gini coefficient. Higher Individualism and Indulgence, and lower Uncertainty Avoidance were associated with higher fidelity, while Long-Term Orientation was a borderline negative predictor. RC operations were predominantly aligned with WEIRD cultures, highlighting the need to incorporate non-WEIRD cultural perspectives to enhance RCs’ global impact. Findings can inform the refinement and evaluation of mental health recovery interventions worldwide.

Abstract Background Peer workers are people with personal experience of mental distress, employed within mental health services to support others with similar experiences. Research has identified a range of factors that might facilitate or hinder the introduction of new peer worker roles into mental health services. While there is mixed evidence for the effectiveness of peer worker delivered interventions, there are no studies exploring how implementation might be associated with effect. Methods This was a qualitative comparative case study using data from interviews with 20 peer workers and their five supervisors. Peer workers delivered peer support for discharge from inpatient to community mental health care as part of a randomised controlled trial. In the trial, level of participant engagement with peer support was associated with better outcome (hospital readmission). Study sites with higher levels of engagement also had higher scores on a measure of fidelity to peer support principles. We compared data from sites with contrasting levels of engagement and fidelity using an analytical framework derived from implementation theory. Results In high engagement-high fidelity sites, there was regular work with clinical teams preparing for working alongside peer workers, and a positive relationship between staff on inpatient wards and peer workers. The supervisor role was well resourced, and delivery of peer support was highly consistent with the intervention manual. In low engagement-low fidelity sites peer workers were employed in not-for-profit organisations to support people using public mental health services and in rural areas. Supervisors faced constrained resources and experienced barriers to joint working between organisations. In these sites, peer workers could experience challenging relationships with ward staff. Issues of geography and capacity limited opportunities for supervision and team-building, impacting consistency of delivery. Conclusions This study provides clear indication that implementation can impact delivery of peer support, with implications for engagement and, potentially, outcomes of peer worker interventions. Resourcing issues can have knock-on effects on consistency of delivery, alongside challenges of access, authority and relationship with clinical teams, especially where peer workers were employed in not-for-profit organisations. Attention needs to be paid to the impact of geography on implementation. Trial registration ISRCTN registry number ISRCTN10043328, registered 28 November 2016.

Background: People with severe mental health conditions, such as schizophrenia, and their family caregivers are underserved in low- and middle-income countries where structured psychosocial support in the community is often lacking. This can present challenges to recovery and for coping with additional strains, such as a pandemic. Aim: This study explored the experiences and coping strategies of people with lived experience of a severe mental health condition, and family caregivers, in South Africa during the initial stages of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Setting: This qualitative study was conducted in the Nelson Mandela Bay District, Eastern Cape, South Africa, in the most restrictive period of the COVID-19 lockdown. Methods: Telephonic qualitative interviews were conducted with people with lived experience (n = 14) and caregivers (n = 15). Audio recordings were transcribed and translated to English from isiXhosa. Thematic analysis was conducted with NVivo 12. Results: Participants described negative impacts including increased material hardship, intensified social isolation and heightened anxiety, particularly among caregivers who had multiple caregiving responsibilities. Coping strategies included finding ways to not only get support from others but also give support, engaging in productive activities and taking care of physical health. The main limitation was inclusion only of people with access to a telephone. Conclusion: Support needs for people with severe mental health conditions and their families should include opportunities for social interaction and sharing coping strategies as well as bolstering financial security. Contribution: These findings indicate that current support for this vulnerable group is inadequate, and resource allocation for implementation of additional community-based, recovery-focused services for families must be prioritised.

Abstract Aims The aims of this feasibility trial were to assess the acceptability and feasibility of peer-led recovery groups for people with psychosis in a low-resource South African setting, to assess the feasibility of trial methods, and to determine key parameters in preparation for a definitive trial. Methods The design was an individually randomised feasibility trial comparing recovery groups in addition to treatment as usual (TAU) with TAU alone. Ninety-two isiXhosa-speaking people with psychosis and forty-seven linked caregivers were recruited from primary care clinics and randomly allocated to trial arms in a 1:1 allocation ratio. TAU comprised anti-psychotic medication delivered in primary care. The intervention arm comprised six recovery groups including service users and caregivers. Two-hour recovery group sessions were delivered weekly in a 2-month auxiliary social worker (ASW)-led phase, then a 3-month peer-led phase. To explore acceptability and feasibility, a mixed methods process evaluation included 25 in-depth interviews and 2 focus group discussions at 5 months with service users, caregivers and implementers, and quantitative data collection including attendance and facilitator competence. To explore potential effectiveness, quantitative outcome data (functioning, relapse, unmet needs, personal recovery, stigma, health service use, medication adherence and caregiver burden) were collected at baseline, 2 months and 5 months post randomisation. Trial registration: PACTR202202482587686. Results Qualitative interviews revealed that recovery groups were broadly acceptable with most participants finding groups to be an enjoyable opportunity for social interaction, and joint problem-solving. Peer facilitation was a positive experience; however a minority of participants did not value expertise by lived experience to the same degree as expertise of professional facilitators. Attendance was moderate in the ASW-led phase (participants attended 59% sessions on average) and decreased in the peer-led phase (41% on average). Participants desired a greater focus on productive activities and financial security. Recovery groups appeared to positively impact on relapse. Relapse occurred in 1 (2.2%) of 46 participants in the recovery group arm compared to 8 (17.4%) of 46 participants in the control arm (risk difference -0.15 [95% CI: −0.26; −0.05]). Recovery groups also impacted on the number of days in the last month totally unable to work (mean 1.4 days recovery groups vs 7.7 days control; adjusted mean difference −6.3 [95%CI: −12.2; −0.3]). There were no effects on other outcomes. Conclusion Peer-led recovery groups for people with psychosis in South Africa are potentially acceptable, feasible and effective. A larger trial, incorporating amendments such as increased support for peer facilitators, is needed to demonstrate intervention effectiveness definitively.

BackgroundPeer support in mental health is a low-threshold intervention with increasing evidence for enhancing personal recovery and empowerment of persons living with severe mental health conditions. As peer support spreads globally, there is a growing need for peer support training programmes that work well in different contexts and cultures. This study evaluates the applicability and transferability of implementing a manualised multi-national training programme for mental health peer support workers called UPSIDES from the perspective of different local stakeholders in high-, middle-, and low-income countries.MethodData from seven focus groups across six study sites in Africa (Tanzania, Uganda), Asia (India, Israel), and Europe (Germany 2 sites) with 44 participants (3 service users, 7 peer support workers, 25 mental health staff members, 6 clinical directors and 3 local community stakeholders) were thematically analysed.Results397 codes were identified, which were thematically analysed. Five implementation enablers were identified: (i) Enhancing applicability through better guidance and clarity of training programme management, (ii) provision of sufficient time for training, (iii) addressing negative attitudes towards peer support workers by additional training of organisations and staff, (iv) inclusion of core components in the training manual such as communication skills, and (v) addressing cultural differences of society, mental health services and discrimination of mental health conditions.DiscussionParticipants in all focus groups discussed the implementation of the training and peer support intervention to a greater extent than the content of the training. This is in line with growing literature of difficulties in the implementation of peer support including difficulties in hiring peer support workers, lack of funding, and lack of role clarity. The results of this qualitative study with stakeholders from different mental health settings worldwide emphasises the need to further investigate the successful implementation of peer support training. All results have been incorporated into the manualisation of the UPSIDES peer support training.

Background Rates of readmission are high following discharge from psychiatric inpatient care. Evidence suggests that transitional interventions incorporating peer support might improve outcomes. Peer support is rapidly being introduced into mental health services, typically delivered by peer workers (people with experiences of mental health problems trained to support others with similar problems). Evidence for the effectiveness of peer support remains equivocal, and the quality of randomised controlled trials to date is often poor. There is an absence of formal cost-effectiveness studies of peer support in mental health services. Objectives This programme aimed to develop, pilot and trial a peer support intervention to reduce readmission to inpatient psychiatric care in the year post-discharge. The programme also developed a peer support fidelity index and evaluated the impact of peer support on peer workers. Design Linked work packages comprised: (1) systematic review and stakeholder consensus work to develop a peer support for discharge intervention; (2) development and psychometric testing of a peer support fidelity index; (3) pilot trial; (4) individually randomised controlled trial of the intervention, including mixed methods process evaluation and economic evaluation; (5) mixed method cohort study to evaluate the impact of peer support on peer workers. The research team included: two experienced service user researchers who oversaw patient and public involvement; service user researchers employed to develop and undertake data collection and analysis; a Lived Experience Advisory Group that informed all stages of the research. Setting The programme took place in inpatient and community mental health services in seven mental health National Health Service trusts in England. Participants Participants included 590 psychiatric inpatients who had had at least one previous admission in the preceding 2 years; 32 peer workers who delivered the intervention; and 8 peer workers’ supervisors. Intervention Participants randomised to peer support were offered at least one session of manualised peer support for discharge prior to discharge and then approximately weekly for 4 months post-discharge. Main outcome measures The primary outcome for the trial was readmission (formal or informal) to psychiatric inpatient care (readmitted or not) within 1 year of discharge from the index admission. Secondary outcomes included inpatient and emergency mental health service use at 1 year post discharge, plus standardised measures of psychiatric symptom severity and psychosocial outcomes, measured at end of intervention (4 months post discharge). Data sources Service use data were collected from electronic patient records, standardised measures of outcome and qualitative data were collected by interview. Review methods We produced two systematic reviews of one-to-one peer support for adults in mental health services. The first included studies of all designs and identified components of peer support interventions; the second was restricted to randomised controlled trials and pooled data from multiple studies to conduct meta-analyses of the effects of peer support. Results Our systematic review indicated that one-to-one peer support improved individual recovery and empowerment but did not reduce hospitalisation. The main trial demonstrated that one-to-one peer support did not have a significant effect on readmission. There was no significant reduction in secondary service use outcomes at 1-year, or improvement in clinical or psychosocial outcomes at 4 months. Participants who received a pre-defined minimal amount of peer support were less likely to be readmitted than patients in the control group who might also have received the minimal amount if offered. Compared to care as usual, black participants in the intervention group were significantly less likely to be readmitted than patients of any other ethnicity (odds ratio 0.40, 95% confidence interval 0.17 to 0.94; p = 0.0305). The economic evaluation indicated a likelihood that peer support offered a reduction in cost in excess of £2500 per participant compared to care as usual (95% confidence interval −£21,546 to £3845). The process evaluation indicated that length and quality of first session of peer support predicted ongoing engagement, and that peer support offered a unique relationship that enables social connection. The impact study indicated that peer workers found their work rewarding and offering opportunities for personal growth but could find the work emotionally and practically challenging while expressing a need for ongoing training and career development. Limitations In the trial, follow-up rates at 4 months were poor, reducing confidence in some of our analyses of secondary outcome and in a wider societal perspective on our health economic evaluation. Conclusions One-to-one peer support for discharge from inpatient psychiatric care, offered in addition to care as usual to participants at risk of readmission, is not superior to care as usual alone in the 12 months post-discharge. Future work Further research is needed to optimise engagement with peer support and better understand experiences and outcomes for people from black and other ethnic communities. Study registration The systematic review is registered as PROSPERO CRD42015025621. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN clinical trial register, number ISRCTN 10043328. Funding This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research programme (NIHR award ref: RP-PG-1212-20019) and is published in full in Programme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 11, No. 8. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information. Plain language summary When people share similar experiences of mental health problems and provide each other with emotional or practical support this can be called peer support. In recent years peer support has been introduced into mental health services. The months after discharge from psychiatric hospital can be difficult for some people. There is research that suggests that peer support might be helpful for people at discharge. There is a lack of good quality trials of peer support in mental health services. There are no studies that tell us if peer support provides value for money. We developed new training for peer workers and a handbook guiding peer support for discharge. We tried this out in two mental health National Health Service trusts to check that we could deliver the peer support and collect the information we needed for our trial. We recruited 590 people from seven mental health National Health Service trusts while they were staying on psychiatric wards. Half of those people were randomly selected to receive peer support for discharge, and half to receive community mental health care only. We found that people offered peer support were just as likely to be readmitted to hospital in the year after they were discharged as people offered usual care only. We found that people who met their peer worker at least twice were less likely to be readmitted in the next year. Black people offered peer support were much less likely to be readmitted compared to people offered usual care than other people in the study (although numbers were small). Our results also suggested that cost of care could be slightly less for people receiving peer support. We interviewed some people who had been offered peer support who told us what they valued about peer support. We interviewed peer workers who told us the work was rewarding but could be challenging. Scientific summary Background Risk of self-harm, suicide and readmission is high in the months immediately following discharge from psychiatric inpatient care. There is some evidence that transitional interventions incorporating peer support improve outcomes, including reduced readmission rates. Peer support is rapidly being introduced into mental health services internationally, typically delivered by peer workers (PWs) (people with their own experiences of mental health problems trained to support others with similar problems). Evidence for the effectiveness of peer support in mental health services remains equivocal, and the quality of randomised controlled trials to date is often poor, with trials at risk of bias because of unclear randomisation and masking procedures and incomplete reporting of outcomes. Peer support interventions are often poorly described, including the support provided for PWs, and the mechanisms of peer support unclear. Health economic evaluations are absent from the literature. Objectives The aim of the programme is to manualise, pilot and trial a peer support intervention to enhance discharge from inpatient to community mental health care, significantly reducing readmissions and the associated cost of care. The detailed research objectives of the programme are: to refine an empirically and theoretically grounded model that explains how peer support impacts on outcomes for service users post-discharge to develop and manualise a peer support intervention to enhance discharge to develop an index to assess the fidelity of peer support interventions to conduct a high-quality randomised controlled trial of the intervention to establish the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a peer support intervention to enhance discharge to explore the impact on PWs of working in a peer support role. Methods A training manual for PWs and intervention handbook were developed in work package 1 (months 1–15). We produced two systematic reviews of one-to-one peer support for adults in mental health services. The first, until April 2015, included studies of all designs and was used to identify components of peer support interventions; the second, until June 2019, was restricted to randomised controlled trials and pooled data from multiple studies to conduct meta-analyses of the effects of peer support. In both searches we searched MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Embase, CINAHL and Cochrane databases (as well as grey literature for the review of components), using ‘peer’, ‘consumer’, ‘survivor’ or ‘prosumer’ adjacent to ‘support’, ‘supporter’, ‘provider’, ‘worker’, ‘specialist’, ‘consultant’, ‘tutor’, ‘educator’, ‘mentor’, ‘intervention’, ‘listener’, ‘mediator’, ‘counsellor’, ‘befriender’ or ‘therapist’ as search terms for peer support. Paper selection at both title and abstract, and full text stage was undertaken independently by two researchers, with data extracted to spreadsheets relevant to each review. Results for the first review were combined with consensus workshops with stakeholder panels to develop and refine the peer support for discharge intervention. We also developed and tested the appropriateness, inter-rated reliability and internal consistency of a peer support fidelity index (work package 2, months 7–24). The index was first tested in 20 peer support projects not involved in the trial, before being retested and then implemented at three timepoints in each trial site. We conducted an internal pilot of the intervention and trial procedures in two sites (work package 3, year 2 of the programme) before proceeding to full trial in seven sites (work package 4, years 3–5). Sites were inpatient and community mental health services in seven mental health National Health Service trusts in England. Participants were people admitted to psychiatric inpatient care who had at least one previous admission in the preceding 2 years (i.e. who were at increased risk of readmission), the PWs who were employed and trained at each site to deliver the intervention, and the PW co-ordinators (PWCs) who supervised PWs at each site. Participants randomised to peer support were offered a manualised peer support for discharge intervention and care as usual (CAU). Participants in the control group received CAU only (discharge summary sent to community or primary care mental health team who contacted participant within 1 week of discharge to plan ongoing care). The primary outcome for the trial was readmission (formal or informal) to psychiatric inpatient care (readmitted or not) within 1 year of discharge from the index admission. Secondary outcomes were number of voluntary admissions, involuntary admissions and total number of admissions, total number of days in hospital, time to first readmission, use of accident and emergency services for a psychiatric emergency (measured as number of episodes of liaison psychiatry contact) and number of contacts with crisis resolution and home treatment teams in the year post discharge, plus standardised measures of psychiatric symptom levels, subjective quality of life, social inclusion, hope for the future and strength of social network, measured at end of intervention (4 months post discharge). Analyses were conducted on an intention-to-treat (ITT) basis. We carried out a Complier Average Casual Effect (CACE) analysis of the primary outcome (where compliers were participants who had at least two PW meetings, at least one of which was in the community following discharge). The CACE was estimated with a two-stage estimation procedure. In the first stage, a logistic regression of treatment receipt regressed on randomisation was conducted. In the second stage, a Poisson regression of the outcome on treatment receipt was conducted. The analysis was adjusted for the same covariates as the ITT analysis. A bootstrap (1000 samples) was used to obtain bias corrected and accelerated confidence intervals (CIs). Subgroup analyses for the primary outcome were pre-specified: ethnicity (any black ethnicity, all other ethnicities); primary diagnosis at index admission (psychotic disorders, personality disorders, other eligible disorders); first language (English, other). Service use data were collected from electronic patient records (EPRs) at study site, standardised measures of outcome and qualitative data were collected by face-to-face interview by a member of the study team. Our primary economic analysis of total costs over 12 months (using EPR of mental health service use), allowing for cost of peer support, and the secondary cost-effectiveness analysis at 4 months [using self-reported quality of life to derive quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs)] were carried out from an NHS mental health service perspective. A wider ‘societal’ perspective was taken when analysing non-NHS mental health care costs over 4 months (using self-reported service use outside of mental health NHS care). All analyses were conducted on an ITT basis using generalised linear modelling (GLM) with a logarithmic link function. We conducted a mixed methods process evaluation as part of work package 4, alongside the trial. Quantitative analyses used regression models to explore pre- and post-randomisation predictors of engagement with the peer support intervention. In-depth qualitative interviews with a subsample of 39 trial participants and all 32 PWs who were involved in delivering the intervention explored their experiences of peer support and sought to elucidate and refine the change model underpinning the intervention. Interviews were undertaken by service user researchers and data analysed using a ‘co-production’ approach to integrate the full range of perspectives on the research team – clinical, academic and experiential – in interpretive workshops, producing an analytical framework that was then used to code the full set of qualitative interviews. Work package 5 was a mixed method, longitudinal cohort study which explored the impact of providing peer support on PWs (from month 31 until the end of year 5). PWs completed standardised measures of well-being and employment outcomes, and in-depth interviews at three timepoints. All data were collected by service user researchers, who played a key role in developing interview schedules, refining rating procedures for the fidelity index, and analysis and interpretation of qualitative interview data. Development of the intervention and all research procedures were informed by a Lived Experience Advisory Panel (LEAP), as well as the experiential knowledge brought by service user researchers and PWs on the research team. Results In the first (2015) systematic review we identified 97 studies (including 12 from grey literature) that contributed 44 potential components to the intervention development process. A total of 66 potential components were identified when combined with outputs of our stakeholder workshops. Through iterative rounds of consensus building and testing we developed and refined our peer support intervention, comprising a bespoke PW training programme and a detailed handbook guiding implementation. In the second (2019) review we identified 23 studies reporting 19 trials. We found that one-to-one peer support in mental health services has a small but statistically significant benefit for individual recovery [standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.22, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.42; p = 0.042] and empowerment (SMD 0.23, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.42; p = 0.020). There was no effect on clinical outcomes such as symptoms or hospitalisation; the risk of being hospitalised was reduced by 14% for those receiving peer support but was non-significant [risk ratio (RR) 0.86, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.13]. We developed a principles-based fidelity index that had good acceptability and psychometric properties. The index measures set-up, delivery and overall fidelity of peer support against four domains (principles): building trusting relationships based on shared lived experience; reciprocity and mutuality; leadership, choice and control; building strengths and making connections to community. In the trial, fidelity was good at set-up in all sites, while fidelity of delivery of peer support was lower in sites where PWs were employed in voluntary sector organisations outside of the NHS. The pilot trial indicated that progression criteria were met subject to a small number of actions to improve the rate of recruitment of participants. In the main trial we successfully recruited our target of 590 participants, and participant characteristics were well-balanced between groups. In the PW group, 136 (47.4%) participants were readmitted to psychiatric inpatient care within 12 months post-index admission, and 146 (50.2%) in the CAU group. The adjusted relative risk of readmission in the ITT analysis was 0.97 (95% CI 0.82 to 1.14; p = 0.6777), and the adjusted odds ratio (OR) was 0.93 (95% CI 0.66 to 1.30). In the CACE analysis, the relative risk of readmission according to the natural indirect effect (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.99) was lower than from the ITT analysis and was significant. In subgroup analyses (see Table 6), for patients of any black ethnicity the adjusted OR of readmission was 0.40 (95% CI 0.17 to 0.94), while for any other ethnicity the OR was 1.12 (95% CI 0.77 to 1.63; interaction p = 0.0305). There were no statistically significant differences between the groups in any of the secondary outcomes assessed at 4 or 12 months. Adherence to the intervention was assessable in 268 (91.2%) participants with a mean of 1.8 [standard deviation (SD) = 2.9] face-to-face contacts with a PW in hospital, 4.4 (SD = 4.6) post discharge. There was a total of 67 serious adverse events (SAE) reported in the trial (34 in the peer support group, 33 in the CAU group) from 51 participants (26 in the peer support group, 25 in the CAU group). One SAE in the peer support group, an incident of self-harm, was reported as related to the intervention. Number and type of SAE included 12 deaths, none of which were reported as related to the study. A cost analysis of mental health service contacts over a 12-month period following discharge from inpatient care showed that, adjusting for baseline covariates, exposure to peer support was associated with a reduction in mean total costs of £2631 (95% CI −£21,546 to £3845): this amounted to a 10% reduction in mean total costs over 12-month post hospital discharge compared to usual care (95% CI −31% to 15%). Given sampling uncertainty there was an estimated 82% probability that peer support was associated with lower total costs over 12 months (or a 18% chance that usual care was the lower cost alternative). Most of the cost advantage over follow-up was due to reductions in the cost of bed day utilisation. Over 4 months, and considering patient quality of life outcomes as well as cost, peer support was also found to be cost-effective from an NHS mental health service perspective. The expected QALY gains associated with peer support were marginal: a 0.002 QALY improvement per participant, equivalent to less than a single day in full health. Participants who were heterosexual were less likely to engage with peer support than gay, lesbian or bisexual participants, OR 0.3 (95% CI 0.08 to 0.87; p = 0.029). We found that length of first contact (in minutes) was positively associated with engaging with peer support, OR 1.02 (95% CI 1.00 to 1.04; p = 0.010), and participants who went on to engage with peer support experienced more relationship building activity in that first contact. A shorter period between allocation to peer support and discharge (in days) was also associated with engagement in the intervention, OR 0.99 (95% CI 0.98 to 1.00; p = 0.002). Our qualitative process evaluation largely supports our original change model, further elucidating the distinctive nature of the peer-to-peer relationship while indicating the role that PWs played in enabling people to build relationships and make connection to community. Choice and control over how people engaged with peer support was identified as an important mediator of good experience and outcomes of peer support. Peer worker well-being, job satisfaction, team working and burn out scores were close to or better than scores for appropriate norm populations throughout the study. There were small but significant drops in well-being, personal satisfaction and satisfaction with workload after 4 months in post, and a similar small increase in burn out, but these changes were not maintained at 12 months. Satisfaction with training and job prospects were lower at 12 months. Qualitative data largely confirmed these findings with PWs indicating that they found that peer support work could be emotionally and practically challenging for the first few months but was rewarding and offered opportunities for personal growth. Conclusions We conclude that peer support for discharge, offered to participants at risk of readmission, was not superior to CAU. Peer support should not be commissioned with the expectation that it reduces readmissions for this group, although some cost-saving based on fewer days in hospital is likely. Our trial findings reflect those of our systematic review, suggesting that one-to-one peer support in mental health services is unlikely to improve clinical outcomes or reduce hospitalisation. Further research is needed to: improve implementation in order to optimise engagement with peer support establish the impact of peer support on psychosocial outcomes understand and evaluate the impacts of peer support for people from different ethnic communities (and especially to optimise benefits for black people using mental health services) understand and evaluate the impacts of peer support for people from different clinical populations establish the construct validity of our fidelity index through use with larger samples better understand the ongoing training and support needs, and career development pathway for PWs. Study registration The systematic review is registered as PROSPERO CRD42015025621. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN clinical trial register, number ISRCTN 10043328. Funding This award was funded by the UK National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research programme (NIHR award ref: RP-PG-1212-20019) and is published in full in Programme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 11, No. 8. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information. This paper presents independent research funded by NIHR. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the UK National Health Service (NHS), the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care.

Abstract Background The available care for people with psychosis in South Africa is inadequate to support personal recovery. Group peer support interventions are a promising approach to foster recovery, but little is known about the preferences of service users, or the practical application of this care model, in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC). This study aims to assess the acceptability and feasibility of integrating peer-led recovery groups for people with psychosis and their caregivers in South Africa into existing systems of care, and to determine key parameters in preparation for a definitive trial. Methods The study is set in Nelson Mandela Bay Metropolitan district of the Eastern Cape Province, South Africa. The design is an individually randomised parallel group feasibility trial comparing recovery groups in addition to treatment as usual (TAU) with TAU alone in a 1:1 allocation ratio. We aim to recruit 100 isiXhosa-speaking people with psychosis and 100 linked caregivers. TAU comprises anti-psychotic medication-focused outpatient care. The intervention arm will comprise seven recovery groups, including service users and caregiver participants. Recovery groups will be delivered in two phases: a 2-month phase facilitated by an auxiliary social worker, then a 3-month peer-led phase. We will use mixed methods to evaluate the process and outcomes of the study. Intervention acceptability and feasibility (primary outcomes) will be assessed at 5 months post-intervention start using qualitative data collected from service users, caregivers, and auxiliary social workers, along with quantitative process indicators. Facilitator competence will be assessed with the GroupACT observational rating tool. Trial procedures will be assessed, including recruitment and retention rates, contamination, and validity of quantitative outcome measures. To explore potential effectiveness, quantitative outcome data (functioning, unmet needs, personal recovery, internalised stigma, health service use, medication adherence, and caregiver burden) will be collected at baseline, 2 months, and 5 months post-intervention start. Discussion This study will contribute to the sparse evidence on the acceptability and feasibility of peer-led and recovery-oriented interventions for people with psychosis in LMIC when integrated into existing care systems. Results from this feasibility trial will inform preparations for a definitive trial and subsequent larger-scale implementation. Trial registration Pan-African Clinical Trials Register PACTR202202482587686. Registered on 28 February 2022. https://pactr.samrc.ac.za/TrialDisplay.aspx?TrialID=21496 .

Partnering with people most affected by mental health problems can transform mental health outcomes. Citizen science as a research approach enables partnering with the public at a substantial scale, but there is scarce guidance on its use in mental health research. To develop best practise guidelines for conducting and reporting research, we conducted a systematic review of studies reporting mental health citizen science research. Documents were identified from electronic databases (n = 10), grey literature, conference proceedings, hand searching of specific journals and citation tracking. Document content was organised in NVIVO using the ten European Citizen Science Association (ECSA) citizen science principles. Best practise guidelines were developed by (a) identifying approaches specific to mental health research or where citizen science and mental health practises differ, (b) identifying relevant published reporting guidelines and methodologies already used in mental health research, and (c) identifying specific elements to include in reporting studies. A total of 14,063 documents were screened. Nine studies were included, from Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Netherlands, Spain, the UK, and the United States. Citizen scientists with lived experience of mental health problems were involved in data collection, analysis, project design, leadership, and dissemination of results. Most studies reported against some ECSA principles but reporting against these principles was often unclear and unstated. Best practise guidelines were developed, which identified mental health-specific issues relevant to citizen science, and reporting recommendations. These included citizen science as a mechanism for empowering people affected by mental health problems, attending to safeguarding issues such as health-related advice being shared between contributors, the use of existing health research reporting guidelines, evaluating the benefits for contributors and impact on researchers, explicit reporting of participation at each research stage, naming the citizen science platform and data repository, and clear reporting of consent processes, data ownership, and data sharing arrangements. We conclude that citizen science is feasible in mental health and can be complementary to other participatory approaches. It can contribute to active involvement, engagement, and knowledge production with the public. The proposed guidelines will support the quality of citizen science reporting.

Abstract Background Recovery Colleges are a relatively recent initiative within mental health services. The first opened in 2009 in London and since then numbers have grown. They are based on principles of personal recovery in mental health, co-production between people with lived experience of mental health problems and professionals, and adult learning. Student eligibility criteria vary, but all serve people who use mental health services, with empirical evidence of benefit. Previously we developed a Recovery College fidelity measure and a preliminary change model identifying the mechanisms of action and outcomes for this group, which we refer to as service user students. The Recovery Colleges Characterisation and Testing (RECOLLECT) study is a five-year (2020–2025) programme of research in England. The aim of RECOLLECT is to determine Recovery Colleges’ effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, and identify organisational influences on fidelity and improvements in mental health outcomes. Methods RECOLLECT comprises i) a national survey of Recovery Colleges, ii) a prospective cohort study to establish the relationship between fidelity, mechanisms of action and psychosocial outcomes, iii) a prospective cohort study to investigate effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, iv) a retrospective cohort study to determine the relationship between Recovery College use and outcomes and mental health service use, and v) organisational case studies to establish the contextual and organisational factors influencing fidelity and outcomes. The programme has been developed with input from individuals who have lived experience of mental health problems. A Lived Experience Advisory Panel will provide input into all stages of the research. Discussion RECOLLECT will provide the first rigorous evidence on the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of Recovery Colleges in England, to inform their prioritising, commissioning, and running. The validated RECOLLECT multilevel change model will confirm the active components of Recovery Colleges. The fidelity measure and evidence about the fidelity-outcome relationship will provide an empirically-based approach to develop Recovery Colleges, to maximise benefits for students. Findings will be disseminated through the study website (researchintorecovery.com/recollect) and via national and international Recovery College networks to maximise impact, and will shape policy on how Recovery Colleges can help those with mental health problems lead empowered, meaningful and fulfilling lives.

Abstract Background Peer workers are increasingly employed in mental health services to use their own experiences of mental distress in supporting others with similar experiences. While evidence is emerging of the benefits of peer support for people using services, the impact on peer workers is less clear. There is a lack of research that takes a longitudinal approach to exploring impact on both employment outcomes for peer workers, and their experiences of working in the peer worker role. Methods In a longitudinal mixed methods study, 32 peer workers providing peer support for discharge from inpatient to community mental health care - as part of a randomised controlled trial - undertook in-depth qualitative interviews conducted by service user researchers, and completed measures of wellbeing, burnout, job satisfaction and multi-disciplinary team working after completing training, and four and 12 months into the role. Questionnaire data were summarised and compared to outcomes for relevant population norms, and changes in outcomes were analysed using paired t-tests. Thematic analysis and interpretive workshops involving service user researchers were used to analysis interview transcripts. A critical interpretive synthesis approach was used to synthesise analyses of both datasets. Results For the duration of the study, all questionnaire outcomes were comparable with population norms for health professionals or for the general population. There were small-to-medium decreases in wellbeing and aspects of job satisfaction, and increase in burnout after 4 months, but these changes were largely not maintained at 12 months. Peer workers felt valued, empowered and connected in the role, but could find it challenging to adjust to the demands of the job after initial optimism. Supervision and being part of a standalone peer worker team was supportive, although communication with clinical teams could be improved. Conclusions Peer workers seem no more likely to experience negative impacts of working than other healthcare professionals but should be well supported as they settle into post, provided with in-work training and support around job insecurity. Research is needed to optimise working arrangements for peer workers alongside clinical teams.

Abstract Objectives Peer support is rapidly being introduced into mental health services internationally, yet peer support interventions are often poorly described, limiting the usefulness of research in informing policy and practice. This paper reports the development of a peer support intervention that aims to improve outcomes of discharge from inpatient to community mental health care. People with experiential knowledge of using mental health services—peer workers and service user researchers—were involved in all stages of developing the intervention: generating intervention components; producing the intervention handbook; piloting the intervention. Results Systematic review and expert panels, including our Lived Experience Advisory Panel, identified 66 candidate intervention components in five domains: Recruitment and Role Description of Peer Workers; Training for Peer Workers; Delivery of Peer Support; Supervision and Support for Peer Workers; Organisation and Team. A series of Local Advisory Groups were used to prioritise components and explore implementation issues using consensus methods, refining an intervention blueprint. A peer support handbook and peer worker training programme were produced by the study team and piloted in two study sites. Feedback workshops were held with peer workers and their supervisors to produce a final handbook and training programme. The ENRICH trial is registered with the ISRCTN clinical trial register, number ISRCTN 10043328, and was overseen by an independent steering committee and a data monitoring committee.

Abstract Background Mental health recovery narratives are a core component of recovery-oriented interventions such as peer support and anti-stigma campaigns. A substantial number of recorded recovery narratives are now publicly available online in different modalities and in published books. Whilst the benefits of telling one’s story have been investigated, much less is known about how recorded narratives of differing modalities impact on recipients. A previous qualitative study identified connection to the narrator and/or to events in the narrative to be a core mechanism of change. The factors that influence how individuals connect with a recorded narrative are unknown. The aim of the current study was to characterise the immediate effects of receiving recovery narratives presented in a range of modalities (text, video and audio), by establishing the mechanisms of connection and the processes by which connection leads to outcomes. Method A study involving 40 mental health service users in England was conducted. Participants were presented with up to 10 randomly-selected recovery narratives and were interviewed on the immediate impact of each narrative. Thematic analysis was used to identify the mechanisms of connection and how connection leads to outcome. Results Receiving a recovery narrative led participants to reflect upon their own experiences or those of others, which then led to connection through three mechanisms: comparing oneself with the narrative and narrator; learning about other’s experiences; and experiencing empathy. These mechanisms led to outcomes through three processes: the identification of change (through attending to narrative structure); the interpretation of change (through attending to narrative content); and the internalisation of interpretations. Conclusions This is the first study to identify mechanisms and processes of connection with recorded recovery narratives. The empirically-based causal chain model developed in this study describes the immediate effects on recipients. This model can inform selection of narratives for use in interventions, and be used to support peer support workers in recounting their own recovery narratives in ways which are maximally beneficial to others.

Background: Recorded Recovery Narratives (RRNs) describing first-person lived experience accounts of recovery from mental health problems are becoming more available. Little is known about how RRNs can be used in clinical practice and clinical education.Aims: The aim of this paper is to enable implementation planning for RRN interventions by identifying determinants of uptake. The objective was to identify opportunities, barriers, and enablers to the uptake of RRN interventions in clinical practice and education.Method: Three phases of focus groups were conducted with multi-professional mental health clinicians. Phase 1 (4 groups, n = 25) investigated current and possible uses of RRNs, Phase 2 (2 groups, n = 15) investigated a specific intervention delivering recovery narratives. Phase 3 (2 groups, n = 12) investigated clinical education uses. Thematic analysis was conducted.Results: RRNs can reinforce the effectiveness of existing clinical practices, by reducing communication barriers and normalizing mental health problems. They can also extend clinical practice (increase hope and connection, help when stuck). Clinical considerations are the relationship with care pathways, choice of staff and stage of recovery. In educational use there were opportunities to access lived experience perspectives, train non-clinical staff and facilitate attitudinal change. Barriers and enablers related to design (ability to use online resources, accessibility of language, ability to individualize choice of narrative), risk (triggering content, staff skills to respond to negative effects), trust in online resource (evidence base, maintenance), and technology (cost of use, technology requirements).Conclusions: RRNs can both improve and extend existing clinical practice and be an important educational resource. RRNs can improve engagement and hope, and address internalized stigma. Beneficially incorporating RRNs into clinical practice and education may require new staff skills and improved technological resources in healthcare settings. Future work could focus on the use of peer support workers views on RRN use and how to avoid unnecessary and unhelpful distress.Trial Registration Number: Work in this paper has informed three clinical trials: ISRCTN11152837; ISRCTN63197153; ISRCTN76355273.

Background: Peers are people with lived experience of mental illness. Peer support is an established intervention in which peers offer support to others with mental illness. A large proportion of people living with severe mental illness receive no care. The care gap is largest in low- and middle-income countries, with detrimental effects on individuals and societies. The global shortage of human resources for mental health is an important driver of the care gap. Peers are an under-used resource in global mental health. Objectives: To describe rationale and methodology of an international multicentre study which will scale-up peer support for people with severe mental illness in high-, middle-, and low-income countries through mixed-methods implementation research. Methods: UPSIDES is an international community of research and practice for peer support, including peer support workers, mental health researchers, and other relevant stakeholders in eight study sites across six countries in Europe, Africa, and Asia. During the first two years of UPSIDES, a series of qualitative studies and systematic reviews will explore stakeholders’ perceptions and the current state of peer support at each site. Findings will be incorporated into a conceptual framework to guide the development of a culturally appropriate peer support intervention to be piloted across all study sites. All intervention and study materials will be translated according to internationally recognised guidelines. Expected Impact: UPSIDES: will leverage the unique expertise of people with lived experience of mental illness to strengthen mental health systems in high-, middle- and low-income countries. UPSIDES will actively involve and empower service users and embed patient-centeredness, recovery orientation, human rights approaches, and community participation into services. The focus on capacity-building of peers may prove particularly valuable in low-resource settings in which shortages of human capital are most severe.

BackgroundMental health recovery narratives are stories of recovery from mental health problems. Narratives may impact in helpful and harmful ways on those who receive them. The objective of this paper is to develop a change model identifying the range of possible impacts and how they occur.MethodSemi-structured interviews were conducted with adults with experience of mental health problems and recovery (n = 77). Participants were asked to share a mental health recovery narrative and to describe the impact of other people's recovery narratives on their own recovery. A change model was generated through iterative thematic analysis of transcripts.ResultsChange is initiated when a recipient develops a connection to a narrator or to the events descripted in their narrative. Change is mediated by the recipient recognising experiences shared with the narrator, noticing the achievements or difficulties of the narrator, learning how recovery happens, or experiencing emotional release. Helpful outcomes of receiving recovery narratives are connectedness, validation, hope, empowerment, appreciation, reference shift and stigma reduction. Harmful outcomes are a sense of inadequacy, disconnection, pessimism and burden. Impact is positively moderated by the perceived authenticity of the narrative, and can be reduced if the recipient is experiencing a crisis.ConclusionsInterventions that incorporate the use of recovery narratives, such as peer support, anti-stigma campaigns and bibliotherapy, can use the change model to maximise benefit and minimise harms from narratives. Interventions should incorporate a diverse range of narratives available through different mediums to enable a range of recipients to connect with and benefit from this material. Service providers using recovery narratives should preserve authenticity so as to maximise impact, for example by avoiding excessive editing.