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.

Implementation of peer support for people with severe mental health conditions in high-, middle- and low-income-countries: a theory of change approach.

BACKGROUND: Stakeholder engagement is essential to the design, implementation and evaluation of complex mental health interventions like peer support. Theory of Change (ToC) is commonly used in global health research to help structure and promote stakeholder engagement throughout the project cycle. Stakeholder insights are especially important in the context of a multi-site trial, in which an intervention may need to be adapted for implementation across very different settings while maintaining fidelity to a core model. This paper describes the development of a ToC for a peer support intervention to be delivered to people with severe mental health conditions in five countries as part of the UPSIDES trial. METHODS: One hundred thirty-four stakeholders from diverse backgrounds participated in a total of 17 workshops carried out at six UPSIDES implementing sites across high-, middle- and low-income settings (one site each in India, Israel, Uganda and Tanzania; two sites in Germany). The initial ToC maps created by stakeholders at each site were integrated into a cross-site ToC map, which was then revised to incorporate additional insights from the academic literature and updated iteratively through multiple rounds of feedback provided by the implementers. RESULTS: The final ToC map divides the implementation of the UPSIDES peer support intervention into three main stages: preparation, implementation, and sustainability. The map also identifies three levels of actors involved in peer support: individuals (service users and peer support workers), organisations (and their staff members), and the public. In the UPSIDES trial, the ToC map proved especially helpful in characterising and distinguishing between (a) common features of peer support, (b) shared approaches to implementation and (c) informing adaptations to peer support or implementation to account for contextual differences. CONCLUSIONS: UPSIDES is the first project to develop a multi-national ToC for a mental health peer support intervention. Stakeholder engagement in the ToC process helped to improve the cultural and contextual appropriateness of a complex intervention and ensure equivalence across sites for the purposes of a multi-site trial. It may serve as a blueprint for implementing similar interventions with a focus on recovery and social inclusion among people with mental ill-health across diverse settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN26008944 (Registration Date: 30/10/2019).

Development of the UPSIDES global mental health training programme for peer support workers: Perspectives from stakeholders in low, middle and high-income countries.

BACKGROUND: Peer 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. METHOD: Data 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. RESULTS: 397 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. DISCUSSION: Participants 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.

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.

Proportionate translation of study materials and measures in a multinational global health trial: methodology development and implementation.

OBJECTIVES: Current translation guidelines do not include sufficiently flexible translation approaches for different study materials. We aimed to develop a proportionate methodology to inform translation of all types of study materials in global health trials. DESIGN: The design included three stages: (1) categorisation of study materials, (2) integration of existing translation frameworks and (3) methodology implementation (Germany, India, Israel, Tanzania and Uganda) and refinement. PARTICIPANTS: The study population comprised 27 mental health service users and 27 mental health workers who were fluent in the local language in stage 7 (pretesting), and 54 bilingual mental health service users, aged 18 years or over, and able to give consent as judged by a clinician for step 9 (psychometric evaluation). SETTING: The study took place in preparation for the Using Peer Support in Developing Empowering Mental Health Services (UPSIDES) randomised controlled trial (ISRCTN26008944). PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE: The primary outcome measure was the Social Inclusion Scale (SIS). RESULTS: The typology identifies four categories of study materials: local text, study-generated text, secondary measures and primary measure. The UPSIDES Proportionate Translation Methodology comprises ten steps: preparation, forward translation, reconciliation, back translation, review, harmonisation, pretesting, finalisation, psychometric evaluation and dissemination. The translated primary outcome measure for the UPSIDES Trial (SIS) demonstrated adequate content validity (49.3 vs 48.5, p=0.08), convergent validity and internal consistency (0.73), with minimal floor/ceiling effects. CONCLUSION: This methodology can be recommended for translating, cross-culturally adapting and validating all study materials, including standardised measures, in future multisite global trials. The methodology is particularly applicable to multi-national studies involving sites with differing resource levels. The robustness of the psychometric findings is limited by the sample sizes for each site. However, making this limitation explicit is preferable to the typical practice of not reporting adequate details about measure translation and validation. TRAIL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN26008944.

Analysis of news media reports of suicides and attempted suicides during the COVID-19 lockdown in India.

BACKGROUND: Based on previous experience there is justifiable concern about suicidal behaviour and news media reporting of it during COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: This study used a systematic search of online news media reports (versions of newspapers, magazine and other digital publications) of suicidal behaviour during India's COVID-19 lockdown and compared it to corresponding dates in 2019. Data was gathered using a uniform search strategy from 56 online news media publications 24 March to 3 May for the years 2019 and 2020 using keywords, suicide, attempted suicide, hangs self and kills self. Demographic variables and methods used for suicide were compared for suicide and attempts between the 2 years using chi-squared tests (χ2). RESULTS: There were online news media reports of 369 cases of suicides and attempted suicides during COVID lockdown vs 220 reports in 2019, a 67.7% increase in online news media reports of suicidal behaviour. Compared to 2019, suicides reported during lockdown were significantly older (30 vs 50 years, p < 0.05), men (71.2% vs 58.7%; p < 0.01), married (77.7% vs 49%; p < 0.01) and employed (82.9% vs 59.5%; p < 0.01). During the lockdown, significantly more suicides were by hanging (64.4% vs 42%), while poisoning (8.5% vs 21.5%) and jumping in front of a train (2% vs 9.4%) (p < 0.05) were significantly reduced. Comparison of COVID and non-COVID groups showed that online news media reports of COVID cases of suicide and attempted suicide were significantly more likely to be men (84.7% vs 60.4%; p < 0.01), older (31-50 years 52.9% vs 25.8%; p < 0.01) employed (91.5% vs 64.3%; p < 0.01), had poor mental (40.1% vs 20.8%; p < 0.01) and poor physical health (24.8% vs 7.9%;11.8, p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Increase in online news media reports of suicides and attempts during COVID-19 lockdown may indicate an increase in journalists' awareness about suicide or more sensational media reporting or may be a proxy indicator of a real community increase in suicidal behaviour. It is difficult to attribute changes in demographic profile and methods used only to changes in journalists' reporting behaviour and should be further explored. We therefore call upon the Government of India to urgently release national suicide data to help devise a comprehensive suicide prevention strategy to address COVID-19 suicidal behaviour.

Challenges to peer support in low- and middle-income countries during COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: A recent editorial urged those working in global mental health to "change the conversation" on coronavirus disease (Covid-19) by putting more focus on the needs of people with severe mental health conditions. UPSIDES (Using Peer Support In Developing Empowering mental health Services) is a six-country consortium carrying out implementation research on peer support for people with severe mental health conditions in high- (Germany, Israel), lower middle- (India) and low-income (Tanzania, Uganda) settings. This commentary briefly outlines some of the key challenges faced by UPSIDES sites in low- and middle-income countries as a result of Covid-19, sharing early lessons that may also apply to other services seeking to address the needs of people with severe mental health conditions in similar contexts. CHALLENGES AND LESSONS LEARNED: The key take-away from experiences in India, Tanzania and Uganda is that inequalities in terms of access to mobile technologies, as well as to secure employment and benefits, put peer support workers in particularly vulnerable situations precisely when they and their peers are also at their most isolated. Establishing more resilient peer support services requires attention to the already precarious situation of people with severe mental health conditions in low-resource settings, even before a crisis like Covid-19 occurs. While it is essential to maintain contact with peer support workers and peers to whatever extent is possible remotely, alternatives to face-to-face delivery of psychosocial interventions are not always straightforward to implement and can make it more difficult to observe individuals' reactions, talk about emotional issues and offer appropriate support. CONCLUSIONS: In environments where mental health care was already heavily medicalized and mostly limited to medications issued by psychiatric institutions, Covid-19 threatens burgeoning efforts to pursue a more holistic and person-centered model of care for people with severe mental health conditions. As countries emerge from lockdown, those working in global mental health will need to redouble their efforts not only to make up for lost time and help individuals cope with the added stressors of Covid-19 in their communities, but also to regain lost ground in mental health care reform and in broader conversations about mental health in low-resource settings.