Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 3 de 3
Mais filtros

Base de dados
Intervalo de ano de publicação
BMC Psychiatry ; 20(1): 534, 2020 11 11.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33176729


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 .

Serviços de Saúde Mental , Adulto , Aconselhamento , Humanos , Grupo Associado , Apoio Social
Medicine (Baltimore) ; 99(10): e19192, 2020 Mar.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32150057


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.

Transtornos Mentais/terapia , Alta do Paciente , Transferência de Pacientes/economia , Grupo Associado , Serviços Comunitários de Saúde Mental , Análise Custo-Benefício , Humanos , Transtornos Mentais/psicologia , Qualidade de Vida , Fatores de Risco , Medicina Estatal , Reino Unido
Front Sociol ; 4: 21, 2019.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33869347


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.