The effectiveness, implementation, and experiences of peer support approaches for mental health: a systematic umbrella review.

BACKGROUND: Peer support for mental health is recommended across international policy guidance and provision. Our systematic umbrella review summarises evidence on the effectiveness, implementation, and experiences of paid peer support approaches for mental health. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, The Campbell Collaboration, and The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (2012-2022) for reviews of paid peer support interventions for mental health. The AMSTAR2 assessed quality. Results were synthesised narratively, with implementation reported using the CFIR (Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research). The protocol was registered with PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42022362099). RESULTS: We included 35 reviews (426 primary studies, n = 95-40,927 participants): systematic reviews with (n = 13) or without (n = 13) meta-analysis, or with qualitative synthesis (n = 3), scoping reviews (n = 6). Most reviews were low or critically low (97%) quality, one review was high quality. Effectiveness was investigated in 23 reviews. Results were mixed; there was some evidence from meta-analyses that peer support may improve depression symptoms (particularly perinatal depression), self-efficacy, and recovery. Factors promoting successful implementation, investigated in 9 reviews, included adequate training and supervision, a recovery-oriented workplace, strong leadership, and a supportive and trusting workplace culture with effective collaboration. Barriers included lack of time, resources and funding, and lack of recognised peer support worker (PSW) certification. Experiences of peer support were explored in 11 reviews, with 3 overarching themes: (i) what the PSW role can bring, including recovery and improved wellbeing for service users and PSWs; (ii) confusion over the PSW role, including role ambiguity and unclear boundaries; and (iii) organisational challenges and impact, including low pay, negative non-peer staff attitudes, and lack of support and training. CONCLUSIONS: Peer support may be effective at improving some clinical outcomes, self-efficacy, and recovery. Certain populations, e.g. perinatal populations, may especially benefit from peer support. Potential strategies to successfully implement PSWs include co-production, clearly defined PSW roles, a receptive hierarchical structure and staff, appropriate PSW and staff training with clinical and/or peer supervision alongside safeguarding. Services could benefit from clear, coproduced, setting specific implementation guidelines for PSW. PSW roles tend to be poorly defined and associations between PSW intervention content and impacts need further investigation. Future research should reflect the priorities of providers/service users involved in peer support.

Mental health in Europe during the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review.

The COVID-19 pandemic caused immediate and far-reaching disruption to society, the economy, and health-care services. We synthesised evidence on the effect of the pandemic on mental health and mental health care in high-income European countries. We included 177 longitudinal and repeated cross-sectional studies comparing prevalence or incidence of mental health problems, mental health symptom severity in people with pre-existing mental health conditions, or mental health service use before versus during the pandemic, or between different timepoints of the pandemic. We found that epidemiological studies reported higher prevalence of some mental health problems during the pandemic compared with before it, but that in most cases this increase reduced over time. Conversely, studies of health records showed reduced incidence of new diagnoses at the start of the pandemic, which further declined during 2020. Mental health service use also declined at the onset of the pandemic but increased later in 2020 and through 2021, although rates of use did not return to pre-pandemic levels for some services. We found mixed patterns of effects of the pandemic on mental health and social outcome for adults already living with mental health conditions.

Clinician views on best practice community care for people with complex emotional needs and how it can be achieved: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Individuals with Complex Emotional Needs (CEN) services, a working description to refer to the needs experienced by people who may have been diagnosed with a "personality disorder", face premature mortality, high rates of co-morbidity, service user and treatment costs. Service provision for this population is recurrently identified as needing to be transformed: there are serious concerns about quality, accessibility, fragmentation of the service system and the stigma and therapeutic pessimism service users encounter. Understanding clinician perspectives is vital for service transformation, as their views and experiences shed light on potential barriers to achieving good care, and how these might be overcome. In this study, we aimed to explore these views. METHODS: We used a qualitative interview design. A total of fifty participants from a range of professions across specialist and generic community mental health services across England who provide care to people with CEN took part in six focus groups and sixteen one-to-one interviews. We analysed the data using a thematic approach. FINDINGS: Main themes were: 1) Acknowledging the heterogeneity of needs: the need for a person-centred care approach and flexibility when working with CEN, 2) 'Still a diagnosis of exclusion': Exploring the healthcare provider-level barriers to providing care, and 3) Understanding the exclusionary culture: exploring the system-based barriers to providing care for CEN. Across these themes, staff highlighted in particular the need for care that was person-centred, relational, empathic, and trauma informed. Major barriers to achieving this are stigmatising attitudes and behaviour towards people with CEN, especially in generic mental health services, lack of development of coherent service systems offering clear long-term pathways and ready access to high quality treatment, and lack of well-developed structures for staff training and support. DISCUSSION: Overall, the findings point towards clinician views as generally congruent with those of service users, reinforcing the need for priorities towards systemwide change to ensure that best practice care is provided for people with CEN. Particularly prominent is the need to put in place systemwide training and support for clinicians working with CEN, encompassing generic and specialist services, and to challenge the stigma still experienced throughout the system. CONCLUSIONS: Staff working with this service user group report that delivering best practice care requires services to be flexible, integrated, and sustainably funded, and for staff to be supported through ongoing training and supervision.

Service user perspectives of community mental health services for people with complex emotional needs: a co-produced qualitative interview study.

BACKGROUND: There is consensus that services supporting people with complex emotional needs are part of a mental health care system in which change is needed. To date, service users' views and co-production initiatives have had little impact on the development of interventions and care. This needs to change, and our paper evidences the experiences and perspectives of a diverse range of people on how community services can best address the needs of people with complex emotional needs. METHODS: A co-produced qualitative research study. Lived experience researchers led data collection and analysis. Individual interviews were conducted with 30 people across England who had a diverse range of experiences and perspectives of using community services for complex emotional needs. Participants were asked about their experiences of using community services for their mental health, and views on how community services can best address their needs. Thematic analysis was used to analyse the data. RESULTS: Participants reported some experiences of good practice but also of experiences of severely stigmatising interventions, a lack of effective support and service fragmentation. Relational Practice was identified as the central overarching theme and describes how community services can best support people with complex emotional needs. This approach involves care delivered in a non-stigmatising, individualised and compassionate way and care that is trauma-informed. It involves care that is planned collaboratively with service users to ensure their multiple needs are addressed in a flexible, holistic and consistent way which accounts for the long-term and fluctuating nature of their needs. CONCLUSIONS: Relational practice approaches have potential to facilitate better community care for people with complex emotional needs. Research and service development are needed to examine how best to implement such approaches across the mental health service system. This work must be co-produced with people with relevant lived experience, their carers and the professionals who support them.

Collaboration for Impact: Co-creating a Workforce Development Toolkit Using an Arts-based Approach.

INTRODUCTION: The identification, communication and management of health risk is a core task of Community Health Workers who operate at the boundaries of community and primary care, often through not-for-profit community interest companies. However, there are few opportunities or resources for workforce development. Publicly funded researchers have an obligation to be useful to the public and furthermore, university funding is increasingly contingent on demonstrating the social impact of academic research. Collaborative work with participants and other stakeholders can have reciprocal benefits to all but may be daunting to some researchers, unused to such approaches. METHODS: This case study is an account of the co-creation of a (freely accessible) workforce development toolkit, as part of a collaboration between academics, community interest companies, patients and services users and arts practitioners. RESULTS: Our collaborative group produced three short films, fictionalising encounters between Community Health Workers and their clients. These were used within a series of five discussion-led workshops with facilitator guidance to explore issues generated by the films. Two collaborating community-based, not-for-profit organisations piloted the toolkit before its launch. CONCLUSION: We aim to encourage other academics to maximise the impact of their own research through collaborative projects with those outside of academia, including research participants and to consider the potential value of arts-based approaches to explore and facilitate reflection on complex tasks and tensions that make up daily work practices. Whilst publication of findings from such projects may be commonplace, accounts of the process are unusual. This detailed account highlights some of the benefits and challenges involved.

Variations in patterns of involuntary hospitalisation and in legal frameworks: an international comparative study.

BACKGROUND: Rising annual incidence of involuntary hospitalisation have been reported in England and some other higher-income countries, but the reasons for this increase are unclear. We aimed to describe the extent of variations in involuntary annual hospitalisation rates between countries, to compare trends over time, and to explore whether variations in legislation, demographics, economics, and health-care provision might be associated with variations in involuntary hospitalisation rates. METHODS: We compared annual incidence of involuntary hospitalisation between 2008 and 2017 (where available) for 22 countries across Europe, Australia, and New Zealand. We also obtained data on national legislation, demographic and economic factors (gross domestic product [GDP] per capita, prevalence of inequality and poverty, and the percentage of populations who are foreign born, members of ethnic minorities, or living in urban settings), and service characteristics (health-care spending and provision of psychiatric beds and mental health staff). Annual incidence data were obtained from government sources or published peer-reviewed literature. FINDINGS: The median rate of involuntary hospitalisation was 106·4 (IQR 58·5 to 150·9) per 100 000 people, with Austria having the highest (282 per 100 000 individuals) and Italy the lowest (14·5 per 100 000 individuals) most recently available rates. We observed no relationship between annual involuntary hospitalisation rates and any characteristics of the legal framework. Higher national rates of involuntary hospitalisation were associated with a larger number of beds (ß coefficient 0·65, 95% CI 0·10 to 1·20, p=0·021), higher GDP per capita purchasing power parity (ß coefficient 1·84, 0·30 to 3·38, p=0·019), health-care spending per capita (ß coefficient 15·92, 3·34 to 28·49, p=0·013), the proportion of foreign-born individuals in the population (ß coefficient 7·32, 0·44 to 14·19, p=0·037), and lower absolute poverty (ß coefficient -11·5, -22·6 to -0·3, p=0·044). There was no evidence of an association between annual involuntary hospitalisation incidence and any other demographic, economic, or health-care indicator. INTERPRETATION: Variations between countries were large and for the most part unexplained. We found a higher annual incidence of involuntary hospitalisation to be associated with a lower rate of absolute poverty, with higher GDP and health-care spending per capita, a higher proportion of foreign-born individuals in a population, and larger numbers of inpatient beds, but limitations in ecological research must be noted, and the associations were weak. Other country-level demographic, economic, and health-care delivery indicators and characteristics of the legislative system appeared to be unrelated to annual involuntary hospitalisation rates. Understanding why involuntary hospitalisation rates vary so much could be advanced through a more fine-grained analysis of the relationships between involuntary hospitalisation and social context, clinical practice, and how legislation is implemented in practice. FUNDING: Commissioned by the Department of Health and funded by the National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) via the NIHR Mental Health Policy Research Unit.