ABSTRACT
In the past decades, psychiatric care has changed from the traditional medical model to a more person-centered and recovery-focused approach. In this process, peer support workers are essential, because with their lived experience of crisis and recovery they are able to spread hope.This article gives an overview of the recent literature describing the current change model of peer support, reporting the evidence of peer support, as well as the current stage of implementation of peer support in different psychiatric contexts.An overview of the current state of research, selected by the authors, based on repeated systematic literature searches in peer support research projects, is given. Additionally, some examples of user involvement from the Hamburg EX-IN Curriculum, trialogs between sufferers, relatives and professionals, as well as the so-called psychosis seminars are described in more detail.Peer support has shown promising results in one-to-one and group settings, case management, crisis interventions, and the reduction of coercive measures.Although there are promising results of peer support in various clinical contexts, multiple challenges in the implementation of peer support are reported. They need to be overcome by the inclusion of all staff members in the change process of the system in order to further develop user-oriented and recovery-oriented psychiatric care.
Subject(s)
Crisis Intervention , Peer Group , Psychotic Disorders/therapy , Counseling , Evidence-Based Medicine , Germany , Humans , Interpersonal Relations , Psychotic Disorders/psychologyABSTRACT
To date, there is little research on personal crisis experiences of mental health professionals. The aim of this study was to explore some of the reasons for why self-disclosure is so difficult and how these difficulties may prevent productive forms of coproduction. These questions are addressed both from a psychiatrist's autoethnographic account and from the perspective of a peer worker who works in various coproductive relationships. It is shown that mental health professionals often revert to an "I-as-we", speaking of themselves as a collective and thereby reifying the boundaries between 'vulnerable users' and 'invulnerable professionals'. Ethnographic examples are given, of how these boundaries are produced by a continuous, often invisible, and powerful category work. It is discussed how the dichotomous logic of these boundaries can cause people on both sides to feel reduced to a representation of a certain species, which can take on an existential dimension. Ways out are identified for mental health professionals to self-reflexively engage with their own crisis experience in coproductive and other relationships.