The impact of working as a peer worker in mental health services: a longitudinal mixed methods study.

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.

The effectiveness of one-to-one peer support in mental health services: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Peer support is being introduced into mental health services internationally, often in response to workforce policy. Earlier systematic reviews incorporate different modalities of peer support (i.e. group and one-to-one), offer inconsistent evidence of effectiveness, and also indicate substantial heterogeneity and issues of quality in the evidence base at that time. An updated review, focussed on one-to-one peer support, is timely given current policy interest. This study aims to systematically review evidence for the effectiveness of one-to-one peer support interventions for adults using mental health services, and to explore heterogeneity in peer support interventions. METHOD: We searched MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Embase, CINAHL and Cochrane databases from inception until 13 June 2019. Included studies were assessed for risk of bias, and meta-analyses conducted where multiple trials provided usable data. RESULTS: Twenty-three studies reporting nineteen trials were eligible, providing data from 3329 participants. While seven trials were of low to moderate risk of bias, incomplete reporting of data in many studies suggested bias in the evidence base. Peer support interventions included peer workers in paraclinical roles (e.g. case manager), providing structured behavioural interventions, or more flexible support for recovery. Meta-analyses were conducted for eleven outcomes, with evidence that one-to-one peer support may have a modest positive impact on self-reported recovery and empowerment. There was no impact on clinical symptoms or service use. Analyses of heterogeneity suggest that peer support might improve social network support. CONCLUSIONS: One-to-one peer support in mental health services might impact positively on psychosocial outcomes, but is unlikely to improve clinical outcomes. In order to better inform the introduction of peer support into mental health services, improvement of the evidence base requires complete reporting of outcome data, selection of outcomes that relate to intervention mechanisms, exploration of heterogeneity in the implementation of peer support and focused reviews of specific types of one-to-one peer support. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Prospero identifier: CRD42015025621 .

Peer support for discharge from inpatient mental health care versus care as usual in England (ENRICH): a parallel, two-group, individually randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: High numbers of patients discharged from psychiatric hospital care are readmitted within a year. Peer support for discharge has been suggested as an approach to reducing readmission post-discharge. Implementation has been called for in policy, however, evidence of effectiveness from large rigorous trials is missing. We aimed to establish whether peer support for discharge reduces readmissions in the year post-discharge. METHODS: We report a parallel, two-group, individually randomised, controlled superiority trial, with trial personnel masked to allocation. Patients were adult psychiatric inpatients (age ≥18 years) with at least one previous admission in the preceding 2 years, excluding those who had a diagnosis of any organic mental disorder, or a primary diagnosis of learning disability, an eating disorder, or drug or alcohol dependency, recruited from seven state-funded mental health services in England. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to the intervention (peer support plus care as usual) or control (care as usual) groups by an in-house, online randomisation service, stratified by site and diagnostic group (psychotic disorders, personality disorders, and other eligible non-psychotic disorders) with randomly permuted blocks of randomly varying length to conceal the allocation sequence and achieve the allocation ratio. The peer support group received manual-based, one-to-one peer support, focused on building individual strengths and engaging with activities in the community, beginning during the index admission and continuing for 4 months after discharge, plus care as usual. Care as usual consisted of follow-up by community mental health services within 7 days of discharge. The primary outcome was psychiatric readmission 12 months after discharge (number of patients readmitted at least once), analysed on an intention-to-treat basis. All patients were included in a safety analysis, excluding those who withdrew consent for use of their data. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN10043328. The trial was complete at the time of reporting. FINDINGS: Between Dec 1, 2016, and Feb 8, 2019, 590 patients were recruited and randomly assigned, with 294 allocated to peer support (287 included in the analysis after withdrawals and loss to follow-up), and 296 to care as usual (291 in the analysis). Mean age was 39·7 years (SD 13·7; range 18-75). 306 patients were women, 267 were men, three were transgender, and two preferred not to say. 353 patients were White, 94 were Black, African, Caribbean, or Black British, 68 were Asian or Asian British, 48 were of mixed or multiple ethnic groups, and 13 were of other ethnic groups. In the peer support group, 136 (47%) of 287 patients were readmitted at least once within 12 months of discharge. 146 (50%) of 291 were readmitted in the care as usual group. The adjusted risk ratio of readmission was 0·97 (95% CI 0·82-1·14; p=0·68), and the adjusted odds ratio for readmission was 0·93 (95% CI 0·66-1·30; p=0·68). The unadjusted risk difference was 0·03 (95% CI -0·11 to 0·05; p=0·51) in favour of the peer support group. Serious adverse events were infrequent (67 events) and similar between groups (34 in the peer support group, 33 in the care as usual group). Threat to life (self-harm) was the most common serious adverse event (35 [52%] of 67 serious adverse events). 391 other adverse events were reported, with self-harm (not life threatening) the most common (189 [48%] of 391). INTERPRETATION: One-to-one peer support for discharge from inpatient psychiatric care, plus care as usual, was not superior to care as usual alone in the 12 months after discharge. This definitive, high-quality trial addresses uncertainty in the evidence base and suggests that peer support should not be implemented to reduce readmission post-discharge for patients at risk of readmission. Further research needs to be done to improve engagement with peer support in high-need groups, and to explore differential effects of peer support for people from different ethnic communities. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health Research.

Peer support for discharge from inpatient to community mental health services: Study protocol clinical trial (SPIRIT Compliant).

INTRODUCTION: In the period shortly after discharge from inpatient to community mental health care, people are at increased risk of self-harm, suicide, and readmission to hospital. Discharge interventions including peer support have shown potential, and there is some evidence that community-based peer support reduces readmissions. However, systematic reviews of peer support in mental health services indicate poor trial quality and a lack of reporting of how peer support is distinctive from other mental health support. This study is designed to establish the clinical and cost effectiveness of a peer worker intervention to support discharge from inpatient to community mental health care, and to address issues of trial quality and clarity of reporting of peer support interventions. METHODS: This protocol describes an individually randomized controlled superiority trial, hypothesizing that people offered a peer worker discharge intervention in addition to usual follow-up care in the community are less likely to be readmitted in the 12 months post discharge than people receiving usual care alone. A total of 590 people will be recruited shortly before discharge from hospital and randomly allocated to care as usual plus the peer worker intervention or care as usual alone. Manualized peer support provided by trained peer workers begins in hospital and continues for 4 months in the community post discharge. Secondary psychosocial outcomes are assessed at 4 months post discharge, and service use and cost outcomes at 12 months post discharge, alongside a mixed methods process evaluation. DISCUSSION: Clearly specified procedures for sequencing participant allocation and for blinding assessors to allocation, plus full reporting of outcomes, should reduce risk of bias in trial findings and contribute to improved quality in the peer support evidence base. The involvement of members of the study team with direct experience of peer support, mental distress, and using mental health services, in coproducing the intervention and designing the trial, ensures that we theorize and clearly describe the peer worker intervention, and evaluate how peer support is related to any change in outcome. This is an important methodological contribution to the evidence base. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was prospectively registered as ISRCTN 10043328 on November 28, 2016.

Co-producing Randomized Controlled Trials: How Do We Work Together?

In the light of the declaration "Nothing about us without us" (Charlton, 2000), interest in co-production, and coproduced research is expanding. Good work has been done establishing principles for co-production (Hickey et al., 2018) and for good quality involvement (Involve, 2013; 4Pi, 2015) and describing how this works in practice in mental health research (Gillard et al., 2012a,b, 2013). In the published literature, co-production has worked well in qualitative research projects in which there is often methodological flexibility. However, to change treatment guidelines in the UK, e.g., the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines, and influence service commissioning, high quality quantitative research is also needed. This type of research is characterized by formal methodological rules, which pose challenges for the scope of co-production. In this paper we describe the significant challenges and solutions we adopted to design and deliver a coproduced randomized controlled trial of mental health peer support. Given the methodological rigidity of a randomized controlled trial, establishing clearly which methodological and practical decisions and processes can be coproduced, by whom, and how, has been vital to our ongoing co-production as the project has progressed and the team has expanded. Creating and maintaining space for the supported dialogue, reflection, and culture that co-production requires has been vital. This paper aims to make our learning accessible to a wide audience of people developing co-production of knowledge in this field.