1
|
Gillard S, Foster R, White S, Barlow S, Bhattacharya R, Binfield P, Eborall R, Faulkner A, Gibson S, Goldsmith LP, Simpson A, Lucock M, Marks J, Morshead R, Patel S, Priebe S, Repper J, Rinaldi M, Ussher M, Worner J. The impact of working as a peer worker in mental health services: a longitudinal mixed methods study. BMC Psychiatry 2022; 22:373. [PMID: 35650562 PMCID: PMC9158348 DOI: 10.1186/s12888-022-03999-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/11/2022] [Accepted: 05/13/2022] [Indexed: 11/17/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Peer workers are increasingly employed in mental health services to use their own experiences of mental distress in supporting others with similar experiences. While evidence is emerging of the benefits of peer support for people using services, the impact on peer workers is less clear. There is a lack of research that takes a longitudinal approach to exploring impact on both employment outcomes for peer workers, and their experiences of working in the peer worker role. METHODS In a longitudinal mixed methods study, 32 peer workers providing peer support for discharge from inpatient to community mental health care - as part of a randomised controlled trial - undertook in-depth qualitative interviews conducted by service user researchers, and completed measures of wellbeing, burnout, job satisfaction and multi-disciplinary team working after completing training, and four and 12 months into the role. Questionnaire data were summarised and compared to outcomes for relevant population norms, and changes in outcomes were analysed using paired t-tests. Thematic analysis and interpretive workshops involving service user researchers were used to analysis interview transcripts. A critical interpretive synthesis approach was used to synthesise analyses of both datasets. RESULTS For the duration of the study, all questionnaire outcomes were comparable with population norms for health professionals or for the general population. There were small-to-medium decreases in wellbeing and aspects of job satisfaction, and increase in burnout after 4 months, but these changes were largely not maintained at 12 months. Peer workers felt valued, empowered and connected in the role, but could find it challenging to adjust to the demands of the job after initial optimism. Supervision and being part of a standalone peer worker team was supportive, although communication with clinical teams could be improved. CONCLUSIONS Peer workers seem no more likely to experience negative impacts of working than other healthcare professionals but should be well supported as they settle into post, provided with in-work training and support around job insecurity. Research is needed to optimise working arrangements for peer workers alongside clinical teams.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Rhiannon Foster
- grid.28577.3f0000 0004 1936 8497City, University of London, London, UK
| | - Sarah White
- grid.264200.20000 0000 8546 682XSt George’s, University of London, London, UK
| | - Sally Barlow
- grid.28577.3f0000 0004 1936 8497City, University of London, London, UK
| | - Rahul Bhattacharya
- grid.450709.f0000 0004 0426 7183East London NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Paul Binfield
- grid.450709.f0000 0004 0426 7183East London NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Rachel Eborall
- grid.37640.360000 0000 9439 0839South London & Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | | | - Sarah Gibson
- grid.264200.20000 0000 8546 682XSt George’s, University of London, London, UK
| | - Lucy P. Goldsmith
- grid.264200.20000 0000 8546 682XSt George’s, University of London, London, UK
| | - Alan Simpson
- grid.13097.3c0000 0001 2322 6764King’s College London, London, UK
| | - Mike Lucock
- grid.15751.370000 0001 0719 6059University of Huddersfield, Huddersfield, UK
| | - Jacqui Marks
- grid.264200.20000 0000 8546 682XSt George’s, University of London, London, UK
| | - Rosaleen Morshead
- grid.264200.20000 0000 8546 682XSt George’s, University of London, London, UK
| | - Shalini Patel
- grid.439450.f0000 0001 0507 6811South West London & St George’s Mental Health NHS Trust, London, UK
| | - Stefan Priebe
- grid.4868.20000 0001 2171 1133Queen Mary, University of London, London, UK
| | - Julie Repper
- Implementing Recovery through Organisational Change, Nottingham, UK
| | - Miles Rinaldi
- grid.439450.f0000 0001 0507 6811South West London & St George’s Mental Health NHS Trust, London, UK
| | - Michael Ussher
- grid.264200.20000 0000 8546 682XSt George’s, University of London, London, UK ,grid.11918.300000 0001 2248 4331University of Stirling, Stirling, UK
| | | |
Collapse
|
2
|
Gillard S, Bremner S, Patel A, Goldsmith L, Marks J, Foster R, Morshead R, White S, Gibson SL, Healey A, Lucock M, Patel S, Repper J, Rinaldi M, Simpson A, Ussher M, Worner J, Priebe S. Peer support for discharge from inpatient mental health care versus care as usual in England (ENRICH): a parallel, two-group, individually randomised controlled trial. Lancet Psychiatry 2022; 9:125-136. [PMID: 35065722 PMCID: PMC8776565 DOI: 10.1016/s2215-0366(21)00398-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/05/2021] [Revised: 09/28/2021] [Accepted: 09/30/2021] [Indexed: 01/01/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND High numbers of patients discharged from psychiatric hospital care are readmitted within a year. Peer support for discharge has been suggested as an approach to reducing readmission post-discharge. Implementation has been called for in policy, however, evidence of effectiveness from large rigorous trials is missing. We aimed to establish whether peer support for discharge reduces readmissions in the year post-discharge. METHODS We report a parallel, two-group, individually randomised, controlled superiority trial, with trial personnel masked to allocation. Patients were adult psychiatric inpatients (age ≥18 years) with at least one previous admission in the preceding 2 years, excluding those who had a diagnosis of any organic mental disorder, or a primary diagnosis of learning disability, an eating disorder, or drug or alcohol dependency, recruited from seven state-funded mental health services in England. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to the intervention (peer support plus care as usual) or control (care as usual) groups by an in-house, online randomisation service, stratified by site and diagnostic group (psychotic disorders, personality disorders, and other eligible non-psychotic disorders) with randomly permuted blocks of randomly varying length to conceal the allocation sequence and achieve the allocation ratio. The peer support group received manual-based, one-to-one peer support, focused on building individual strengths and engaging with activities in the community, beginning during the index admission and continuing for 4 months after discharge, plus care as usual. Care as usual consisted of follow-up by community mental health services within 7 days of discharge. The primary outcome was psychiatric readmission 12 months after discharge (number of patients readmitted at least once), analysed on an intention-to-treat basis. All patients were included in a safety analysis, excluding those who withdrew consent for use of their data. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN10043328. The trial was complete at the time of reporting. FINDINGS Between Dec 1, 2016, and Feb 8, 2019, 590 patients were recruited and randomly assigned, with 294 allocated to peer support (287 included in the analysis after withdrawals and loss to follow-up), and 296 to care as usual (291 in the analysis). Mean age was 39·7 years (SD 13·7; range 18-75). 306 patients were women, 267 were men, three were transgender, and two preferred not to say. 353 patients were White, 94 were Black, African, Caribbean, or Black British, 68 were Asian or Asian British, 48 were of mixed or multiple ethnic groups, and 13 were of other ethnic groups. In the peer support group, 136 (47%) of 287 patients were readmitted at least once within 12 months of discharge. 146 (50%) of 291 were readmitted in the care as usual group. The adjusted risk ratio of readmission was 0·97 (95% CI 0·82-1·14; p=0·68), and the adjusted odds ratio for readmission was 0·93 (95% CI 0·66-1·30; p=0·68). The unadjusted risk difference was 0·03 (95% CI -0·11 to 0·05; p=0·51) in favour of the peer support group. Serious adverse events were infrequent (67 events) and similar between groups (34 in the peer support group, 33 in the care as usual group). Threat to life (self-harm) was the most common serious adverse event (35 [52%] of 67 serious adverse events). 391 other adverse events were reported, with self-harm (not life threatening) the most common (189 [48%] of 391). INTERPRETATION One-to-one peer support for discharge from inpatient psychiatric care, plus care as usual, was not superior to care as usual alone in the 12 months after discharge. This definitive, high-quality trial addresses uncertainty in the evidence base and suggests that peer support should not be implemented to reduce readmission post-discharge for patients at risk of readmission. Further research needs to be done to improve engagement with peer support in high-need groups, and to explore differential effects of peer support for people from different ethnic communities. FUNDING UK National Institute for Health Research.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Steve Gillard
- School of Health Sciences, City, University of London, London, UK.
| | - Stephen Bremner
- Department of Primary Care and Public Health, Brighton and Sussex Medical School, Brighton, UK
| | - Akshaykumar Patel
- Pragmatic Clinical Trials Unit, Queen Mary, University of London, London, UK
| | - Lucy Goldsmith
- Population Health Research Institute, St George's, University of London, London, UK
| | - Jacqueline Marks
- Population Health Research Institute, St George's, University of London, London, UK
| | - Rhiannon Foster
- Population Health Research Institute, St George's, University of London, London, UK
| | - Rosaleen Morshead
- Population Health Research Institute, St George's, University of London, London, UK
| | - Sarah White
- Population Health Research Institute, St George's, University of London, London, UK
| | - Sarah L Gibson
- Population Health Research Institute, St George's, University of London, London, UK
| | - Andrew Healey
- King's Health Economics, King's College London, London, UK
| | - Mike Lucock
- Centre for Applied Research in Health, University of Huddersfield, Huddersfield, UK
| | - Shalini Patel
- Adult Community Mental Health Team, South West London and St George's Mental Health NHS Trust, London, UK
| | - Julie Repper
- Implementing Recovery through Organisational Change, Nottingham, UK
| | - Miles Rinaldi
- Strategy and Transformation, South West London and St George's Mental Health NHS Trust, London, UK; Centre for Work and Mental Health, Nordland Hospital Trust, Bodø, Norway
| | - Alan Simpson
- Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK
| | - Michael Ussher
- Population Health Research Institute, St George's, University of London, London, UK; Institute for Social Marketing and Health, University of Stirling, Stirling, UK
| | | | - Stefan Priebe
- Unit for Social and Community Psychiatry, Queen Mary, University of London, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Marks J, Foster R, Gibson SL, Simpson A, Rinaldi M, Repper J, Worner J, Patel S, Lucock M, Ussher M, White S, Goldsmith L, Barlow S, Gillard S. Development of a peer support intervention to improve the experience and outcomes of discharge from inpatient mental health care: the role of experiential knowledge in a coproduced approach. BMC Res Notes 2021; 14:320. [PMID: 34419155 PMCID: PMC8379721 DOI: 10.1186/s13104-021-05735-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/28/2021] [Accepted: 08/11/2021] [Indexed: 11/26/2022] Open
Abstract
Objectives Peer support is rapidly being introduced into mental health services internationally, yet peer support interventions are often poorly described, limiting the usefulness of research in informing policy and practice. This paper reports the development of a peer support intervention that aims to improve outcomes of discharge from inpatient to community mental health care. People with experiential knowledge of using mental health services—peer workers and service user researchers—were involved in all stages of developing the intervention: generating intervention components; producing the intervention handbook; piloting the intervention. Results Systematic review and expert panels, including our Lived Experience Advisory Panel, identified 66 candidate intervention components in five domains: Recruitment and Role Description of Peer Workers; Training for Peer Workers; Delivery of Peer Support; Supervision and Support for Peer Workers; Organisation and Team. A series of Local Advisory Groups were used to prioritise components and explore implementation issues using consensus methods, refining an intervention blueprint. A peer support handbook and peer worker training programme were produced by the study team and piloted in two study sites. Feedback workshops were held with peer workers and their supervisors to produce a final handbook and training programme. The ENRICH trial is registered with the ISRCTN clinical trial register, number ISRCTN 10043328, and was overseen by an independent steering committee and a data monitoring committee. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13104-021-05735-0.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | | | - Miles Rinaldi
- South West London & St George's Mental Health NHS Trust, London, UK.,Nordland Hospital Trust, Centre for Work and Mental Health, Bodø, Norway
| | - Julie Repper
- Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, Nottingham, UK
| | | | - Shalini Patel
- South West London & St George's Mental Health NHS Trust, London, UK
| | - Mike Lucock
- University of Huddersfield, Huddersfield, UK
| | | | - Sarah White
- St George's, University of London, London, UK
| | - Lucy Goldsmith
- St George's, University of London, London, UK.,City, University of London, London, UK
| | | | - Steve Gillard
- St George's, University of London, London, UK. .,City, University of London, London, UK.
| |
Collapse
|