Perspectives of key informants before and after implementing UPSIDES peer support in mental health services: qualitative findings from an international multi-site study.

BACKGROUND: Peer support is an essential part of recovery-oriented care worldwide. Contextual factors have an impact on the implementation of peer support work. However, research has paid little attention to similarities and differences of implementation factors in settings varying by income-level and cultural values. The aim of this study is to assess the factors influencing the implementation of a peer support intervention across study sites in low-, middle- and high-income countries in line with the Consolidation Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). METHOD: 6 focus groups with a total of 54 key informants with relevant contextual (organisational) knowledge regarding implementation facilitators and barriers were conducted at six study sites Ulm and Hamburg (Germany), Butabika (Uganda), Dar es Salaam (Tanzania), Be'er Sheva (Israel), and Pune (India) before and 1.5 years after the start of UPSIDES peer support. Transcripts were analysed using qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: Across study sites key informants reported benefits of peer support for service users and peer support workers as implementation facilitators. At study sites with lower resources, reduced workload for mental health workers and improved access to mental health services through peer support were perceived as implementation facilitators (CFIR Domain 1: Intervention characteristics). The degree of engagement of mental health workers (CFIR Domain 3: Inner Setting/Domain 4: Individuals involved) varied across study sites and was seen either as a barrier (low engagement) or a facilitator (high engagement). Across study sites, adequate training of peer support workers (CFIR Domain 5: Implementation process) was seen as animplementation facilitator, while COVID-19 as well as low resource availability were reported as implementation barriers (CFIR Domain 2: Outer setting). CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the importance of considering contextual factors when implementing peer support, including previous experience and perceived benefits. Particular attention should be given to organisational benefits such as workload reduction and the allocation of sufficient resources as key drivers in LMICs. In HICs, the potential of organisational benefits for successful implementation should be further investigated and promoted.

Assessing the Usage and Usability of a Mental Health Advice Telephone Service in Uganda: Mixed Methods Study.

BACKGROUND: Harnessing mobile health (mHealth) solutions could improve the delivery of mental health services and mitigate their impact in Uganda and similar low-resource settings. However, successful adoption requires that mHealth solutions have good usability. We have previously implemented a telephone service to provide mental health information and advice in English and Luganda, utilizing an automated interactive voice response (IVR) system linked to live agents, including mental health care workers and peer support workers. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to assess the usage and usability of this mental health telephone service. METHODS: We obtained usage data from the system's call logs over 18 months to study call volumes and trends. We then surveyed callers to gather their characteristics and assess usability using the Telehealth Usability Questionnaire. Additionally, call recordings were evaluated for conversation quality by 3 independent health care professionals, using the Telephone Nursing Dialogue Process, and correlations between quality and usability aspects were investigated. RESULTS: Over 18 months, the system received 2863 meaningful calls (ie, calls that went past the welcome message) from 1125 unique telephone numbers. Of these, 1153 calls (40.27%) stopped at the prerecorded IVR information, while 1710 calls (59.73%) opted to speak to an agent. Among those who chose to speak with an agent, 1292 calls (75.56%) were answered, 393 calls (22.98%) went to voicemail and were returned in the following working days, and 25 calls (1.46%) were not answered. Usage was generally sustained over time, with spikes in call volume corresponding to marketing events. The survey (n=240) revealed that most callers were caregivers of patients with mental health issues (n=144, 60.0%) or members of the general public (n=46, 19.2%), while a few were patients with mental health issues (n=44, 18.3%). Additionally, the majority were male (n=143, 59.6%), spoke English (n=180, 75.0%), had postsecondary education (n=164, 68.3%), lived within 1 hour or less from Butabika Hospital (n=187, 77.9%), and were aged 25-44 years (n=160, 66.7%). The overall usability score for the system was 4.12 on a 5-point scale, significantly higher than the recommended target usability score of 4 (P=.006). The mean scores for usability components ranged from 3.66 for reliability to 4.41 for ease of use, with all components, except reliability, scoring higher than 4 or falling within its CI. Usability scores were higher for Luganda speakers compared with English speakers, but there was no association with other participant characteristics such as sex, distance from the hospital, age, marital status, duration of symptoms, or treatment status. The quality of call conversations (n=50) was rated at 4.35 out of 5 and showed a significant correlation with usability (Pearson r=0.34, P=.02). CONCLUSIONS: We found sustained usage of the mental health telephone service, along with a positive user experience and high satisfaction across various user characteristics. mHealth solutions like this should be embraced and replicated to enhance the delivery of health services in Uganda and similar low-resource settings.

Mental health workers' perspectives on the implementation of a peer support intervention in five countries: qualitative findings from the UPSIDES study.

OBJECTIVE: The introduction of peer support in mental health teams creates opportunities and challenges for both peer and non-peer staff. However, the majority of research on mental health workers' (MHWs) experiences with peer support comes from high-income countries. Using Peer Support In Developing Empowering Mental Health Services (UPSIDES) is an international multicentre study, which aims at scaling up peer support for people with severe mental illness in Europe, Asia and Africa. This study investigates MHWs experiences with UPSIDES peer support. DESIGN: Six focus groups with MHWs were conducted approximately 18 months after the implementation of the UPSIDES peer support intervention. Transcripts were analysed with a descriptive approach using thematic content analysis. SETTING: Qualitative data were collected in Ulm and Hamburg (Germany), Butabika (Uganda), Dar es Salaam (Tanzania), Be'er Sheva (Israel) and Pune (India). PARTICIPANTS: 25 MHWs (19 females and 6 males) from UPSIDES study sites in the UPSIDES Trial (ISRCTN26008944) participated. FINDINGS: Five overarching themes were identified in MHWs' discussions: MHWs valued peer support workers (PSWs) for sharing their lived experiences with service users (theme 1), gained trust in peer support over time (theme 2) and provided support to them (theme 3). Participants from lower-resource study sites reported additional benefits, including reduced workload. PSWs extending their roles beyond what MHWs perceived as appropriate was described as a challenge (theme 4). Perceptions about PSWs varied based on previous peer support experience, ranging from considering PSWs as equal team members to viewing them as service users (theme 5). CONCLUSIONS: Considering local context is essential in order to understand MHWs' views on the cooperation with PSWs. Especially in settings with less prior experience of peer support, implementers should make extra effort to promote interaction between MHWs and PSWs. In order to better understand the determinants of successful implementation of peer support in diverse settings, further research should investigate the impact of contextual factors (eg, resource availability and cultural values). TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN26008944.