Dataset Information

A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials of peer support for people with severe mental illness.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Little is known about whether peer support improves outcomes for people with severe mental illness.

Method

A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted. Cochrane CENTRAL Register, Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL were searched to July 2013 without restriction by publication status. Randomised trials of non-residential peer support interventions were included. Trial interventions were categorised and analysed separately as: mutual peer support, peer support services, or peer delivered mental health services. Meta-analyses were performed where possible, and studies were assessed for bias and the quality of evidence described.

Results

Eighteen trials including 5597 participants were included. These comprised four trials of mutual support programmes, eleven trials of peer support services, and three trials of peer-delivered services. There was substantial variation between trials in participants' characteristics and programme content. Outcomes were incompletely reported; there was high risk of bias. From small numbers of studies in the analyses it was possible to conduct, there was little or no evidence that peer support was associated with positive effects on hospitalisation, overall symptoms or satisfaction with services. There was some evidence that peer support was associated with positive effects on measures of hope, recovery and empowerment at and beyond the end of the intervention, although this was not consistent within or across different types of peer support.

Conclusions

Despite the promotion and uptake of peer support internationally, there is little evidence from current trials about the effects of peer support for people with severe mental illness. Although there are few positive findings, this review has important implications for policy and practice: current evidence does not support recommendations or mandatory requirements from policy makers for mental health services to provide peer support programmes. Further peer support programmes should be implemented within the context of high quality research projects wherever possible. Deficiencies in the conduct and reporting of existing trials exemplify difficulties in the evaluation of complex interventions.

SUBMITTER: Lloyd-Evans B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3933205 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials of peer support for people with severe mental illness.

Lloyd-Evans Brynmor B Mayo-Wilson Evan E Harrison Bronwyn B Istead Hannah H Brown Ellie E Pilling Stephen S Johnson Sonia S Kendall Tim T

BMC psychiatry 20140214

<h4>Background</h4>Little is known about whether peer support improves outcomes for people with severe mental illness.<h4>Method</h4>A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted. Cochrane CENTRAL Register, Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL were searched to July 2013 without restriction by publication status. Randomised trials of non-residential peer support interventions were included. Trial interventions were categorised and analysed separately as: mutual peer support, peer support s ...[more]

PMID: 24528545

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPeer support provides the opportunity for peers with experiential knowledge of a mental illness to give emotional, appraisal and informational assistance to current service users, and is becoming an important recovery-oriented approach in healthcare for people with mental illness.ObjectivesTo assess the effects of peer-support interventions for people with schizophrenia or other serious mental disorders, compared to standard care or other supportive or psychosocial interventions not from peers.Search methodsWe searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials on 27 July 2016 and 4 July 2017. There were no limitations regarding language, date, document type or publication status.Selection criteriaWe selected all randomised controlled clinical studies involving people diagnosed with schizophrenia or other related serious mental illness that compared peer support to standard care or other psychosocial interventions and that did not involve 'peer' individual/group(s). We included studies that met our inclusion criteria and reported useable data. Our primary outcomes were service use and global state (relapse).Data collection and analysisThe authors of this review complied with the Cochrane recommended standard of conduct for data screening and collection. Two review authors independently screened the studies, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of the included studies. Any disagreement was resolved by discussion until the authors reached a consensus. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for binary data, and the mean difference and its 95% CI for continuous data. We used a random-effects model for analyses. We assessed the quality of evidence and created a 'Summary of findings' table using the GRADE approach.Main resultsThis review included 13 studies with 2479 participants. All included studies compared peer support in addition to standard care with standard care alone. We had significant concern regarding risk of bias of included studies as over half had an unclear risk of bias for the majority of the risk domains (i.e. random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, attrition and selective reporting). Additional concerns regarding blinding of participants and outcome assessment, attrition and selective reporting were especially serious, as about a quarter of the included studies were at high risk of bias for these domains.All included studies provided useable data for analyses but only two trials provided useable data for two of our main outcomes of interest, and there were no data for one of our primary outcomes, relapse. Peer support appeared to have little or no effect on hospital admission at medium term (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.11 to 1.75; participants = 19; studies = 1, very low-quality evidence) or all-cause death in the long term (RR 1.52, 95% CI 0.43 to 5.31; participants = 555; studies = 1, very low-quality evidence). There were no useable data for our other prespecified important outcomes: days in hospital, clinically important change in global state (improvement), clinically important change in quality of life for peer supporter and service user, or increased cost to society.One trial compared peer support with clinician-led support but did not report any useable data for the above main outcomes.Authors' conclusionsCurrently, very limited data are available for the effects of peer support for people with schizophrenia. The risk of bias within trials is of concern and we were unable to use the majority of data reported in the included trials. In addition, the few that were available, were of very low quality. The current body of evidence is insufficient to either refute or support the use of peer-support interventions for people with schizophrenia and other mental illness.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Peer support is an established intervention involving a person recovering from mental illness supporting others with mental illness. Peer support is an under-used resource in global mental health. Building upon comprehensive formative research, this study will rigorously evaluate the impact of peer support at multiple levels, including service user outcomes (psychosocial and clinical), peer support worker outcomes (work role and empowerment), service outcomes (cost-effectiveness and return on investment), and implementation outcomes (adoption, sustainability and organisational change). METHODS:UPSIDES-RCT is a pragmatic, parallel-group, multicentre, randomised controlled trial assessing the effectiveness of using peer support in developing empowering mental health services (UPSIDES) at four measurement points over 1 year (baseline, 4-, 8- and 12-month follow-up), with embedded process evaluation and cost-effectiveness analysis. Research will take place in a range of high-, middle- and low-income countries (Germany, UK, Israel, India, Uganda and Tanzania). The primary outcome is social inclusion of service users with severe mental illness (N?=?558; N?=?93 per site) at 8-month follow-up, measured with the Social Inclusion Scale. Secondary outcomes include empowerment (using the Empowerment Scale), hope (using the HOPE scale), recovery (using Stages of Recovery) and health and social functioning (using the Health of the Nations Outcome Scales). Mixed-methods process evaluation will investigate mediators and moderators of effect and the implementation experiences of four UPSIDES stakeholder groups (service users, peer support workers, mental health workers and policy makers). A cost-effectiveness analysis examining cost-utility and health budget impact will estimate the value for money of UPSIDES peer support. DISCUSSION:The UPSIDES-RCT will explore the essential components necessary to create a peer support model in mental health care, while providing the evidence required to sustain and eventually scale-up the intervention in different cultural, organisational and resource settings. By actively involving and empowering service users, UPSIDES will move mental health systems toward a recovery orientation, emphasising user-centredness, community participation and the realisation of mental health as a human right. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ISRCTN, ISRCTN26008944. Registered on 30 October 2019.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Peer support is recognized globally as an essential recovery service for people with mental health conditions. With the influx of digital mental health services changing the way mental health care is delivered, peer supporters are increasingly using technology to deliver peer support. In light of these technological advances, there is a need to review and synthesize the emergent evidence for peer-supported digital health interventions for adults with mental health conditions. OBJECTIVE:The aim of this study was to identify and review the evidence of digital peer support interventions for people with a lived experience of a serious mental illness. METHODS:This systematic review was conducted using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) procedures. The PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Central, CINAHL, and PsycINFO databases were searched for peer-reviewed articles published between 1946 and December 2018 that examined digital peer support interventions for people with a lived experience of a serious mental illness. Additional articles were found by searching the reference lists from the 27 articles that met the inclusion criteria and a Google Scholar search in June 2019. Participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS) criteria were used to assess study eligibility. Two authors independently screened titles and abstracts, and reviewed all full-text articles meeting the inclusion criteria. Discrepancies were discussed and resolved. All included studies were assessed for methodological quality using the Methodological Quality Rating Scale. RESULTS:A total of 30 studies (11 randomized controlled trials, 2 quasiexperimental, 15 pre-post designs, and 2 qualitative studies) were included that reported on 24 interventions. Most of the studies demonstrated feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary effectiveness of peer-to-peer networks, peer-delivered interventions supported with technology, and use of asynchronous and synchronous technologies. CONCLUSIONS:Digital peer support interventions appear to be feasible and acceptable, with strong potential for clinical effectiveness. However, the field is in the early stages of development and requires well-powered efficacy and clinical effectiveness trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION:PROSPERO CRD42020139037; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID= 139037.

Project description:Interventions: We are assessing the impact of the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program (NBCSP) by comparing participation rates of people with and without Severe Mental Illness (SMI) and looking at health outcomes. We will be using data collected from Aug 2006 - latest available. We are linking data using Commonwealth data (NBCSP, Medicare Benefits Schedule, Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, Australian Cancer Database & the National Death Index) to compare bowel cancer screening participation in people with SMI to those from the general population. We will additionally link these to the NSW cancer registry and hospital data to examine care pathways from diagnosis through treatment and end-of-life care. We will also conduct a consultation with people with experience of SMI and Colorectal cancer and people with SMI in peer support roles who can provide their perspective on the barriers faced by people with SMI to gaining timely screening, diagnosis and optimal care. These participants will be recruited from New South Wales consumer organisations and organisations with a strong focus on provision of peer support and advocacy. We will use a semi structured group interview schedule to facilitate discussion of a single focus group of 15 people. The group will consist of both people with lived experience who have direct experience of bowel cancer (n=10), as well as other people with lived experience who have supported people in this situation – as peer support workers or in other consumer advocacy/support roles (n=5). We will use this qualitative arm of the study to further develop our understanding of the quantitative findings. The consultation will also develop ideas on how to improve access to care. Primary outcome(s): Participation rates in the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program assessed using data from the NBCSP.[Person-years will be calculated from entry into the study (2006) (the date of commencement of the NBCSP) or from the year that people become eligible for screening (i.e. age 50), whichever occurs later.. This is a retrospective cohort study, so all of the outcomes have already occurred and were recorded in the administrative data. This will be assessed when we receive the data.];Colonoscopy rates assessed using data from the NBCSP [Person-years will be calculated from entry into the study (2006 the date of commencement of the NBCSP), or from the year that people become eligible for screening (i.e. age 50), whichever occurs later, until colonoscopy. This is a retrospective cohort study, so all of the outcomes have already occurred and have been recorded in the administrative data.];Cancer diagnosis using data from the Australian Cancer Database[Person-years will be calculated from entry into the study (2006 the date of commencement of the NBCSP), or from the year that people become eligible for screening (i.e. age 50), whichever occurs later, until cancer diagnosis. This is a retrospective cohort study, so all of the outcomes have already occurred and have been recorded in the administrative data.] Study Design: Purpose: Screening;Duration: Longitudinal;Selection: Case control;Timing: Both

Project description:BACKGROUND:An advance directive is a document specifying a person's preferences for treatment, should he or she lose capacity to make such decisions in the future. They have been used in end-of-life settings to direct care but should be well suited to the mental health setting. OBJECTIVES:To examine the effects of advance treatment directives for people with severe mental illness. SEARCH STRATEGY:We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Register (February 2008), the Cochrane Library (Issue 1 2008), BIOSIS (1985 to February 2008), CINAHL (1982 to February 2008), EMBASE (1980 to February 2008), MEDLINE (1966 to February 2008), PsycINFO (1872 to February 2008), as well as SCISEARCH and Google - Internet search engine (February 2008). We inspected relevant references and contacted first authors of included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA:We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs), involving adults with severe mental illness, comparing any form of advance directive with standard care for health service and clinical outcomes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:We extracted data independently. For homogenous dichotomous data we calculated fixed-effect relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous data, we calculated weighted mean differences (WMD) and their 95% confidence interval again using a fixed-effect model. MAIN RESULTS:We were able to include two trials involving 321 people with severe mental illnesses. There was no significant difference in hospital admission (n=160, 1 RCT, RR 0.69 0.5 to 1.0), or number of psychiatric outpatient attendances between participants given advanced treatment directives or usual care. Similarly, no significant differences were found for compliance with treatment, self harm or number of arrests. Participants given advanced treatment directives needed less use of social workers time (n=160, 1 RCT, WMD -106.00 CI -156.2 to -55.8) than the usual care group, and violent acts were also lower in the advanced directives group (n=160, 1 RCT, RR 0.27 CI 0.1 to 0.9, NNT 8 CI 6 to 92). The number of people leaving the study early were not different between groups (n=321, 2 RCTs, RR 0.92 CI 0.6 to 1.6). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:There are too few data available to make definitive recommendations. More intensive forms of advance directive appear to show promise, but currently practice must be guided by evidence other than that derived from randomised trials. More trials are indicated to determine whether higher intensity interventions, such as joint crisis planning, have an effect on outcomes of clinical relevance.

Project description:BackgroundThe estimated 300,000 adults in Australia with severe mental illness (SMI) have markedly reduced life expectancy compared to the general population, mainly due to physical health comorbidities. Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the commonest cause of early death and people with SMI have high rates of most modifiable risk factors, with associated quality of life (QoL) reduction. High blood pressure, smoking, dyslipidaemia, diabetes and obesity are major modifiable CVD risk factors. Poor delivery of recommended monitoring and risk reduction is a national and international problem. Therefore, effective preventive interventions to safeguard and support physical health are urgently needed in this population.MethodsThis trial used a rigorous process, including extensive piloting, to develop an intervention that delivers recommended physical health care to reduce CVD risk and improve QoL for people with SMI. Components of this intervention are integrated using the Flinders Program of chronic condition management (CCM) which is a comprehensive psychosocial care planning approach that places the patient at the centre of their care, and focuses on building their self-management capacity within a collaborative approach, therefore providing a recovery-oriented framework. The primary project aim is to evaluate the effectiveness and health economics of the CCM intervention. The main outcome measures examine CVD risk and quality of life. The second aim is to identify essential components, enablers and barriers at patient, clinical and organisational levels for national, sustained implementation of recommended physical health care delivery to people with SMI. Participants will be recruited from a community-based public psychiatric service.DiscussionThis study constitutes the first large-scale trial, worldwide, using the Flinders Program with this population. By combining a standardised yet flexible motivational process with a targeted set of evidence-based interventions, the chief aim is to reduce CVD risk by 20%. If achieved, this will be a ground-breaking outcome, and the program will be subsequently translated nationwide and abroad. The trial will be of great interest to people with mental illness, family carers, mental health services, governments and primary care providers because the Flinders Program can be delivered in diverse settings by any clinical discipline and supervised peers.Trial registrationAustralian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12617000474358 . Registered on 31 March 2017.

Dataset Information

A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials of peer support for people with severe mental illness.

Background

Method

Results

Conclusions

Publications

A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials of peer support for people with severe mental illness.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets