Dataset Information

Application of Community-Engaged Research to Inform the Development and Implementation of a Peer-Delivered Mobile Health Intervention for Adults With Serious Mental Illness.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Involving certified peer specialists in all phases of intervention development and research is a high priority to advance peer-delivered services. Certified peer specialists are individuals with a lived experience of a mental illness, and they are trained and accredited to provide Medicaid reimbursable mental health services. Community-engaged research can facilitate the development and implementation of peer-delivered interventions; however, little is known about the processes. We present our application of community-engaged research to inform the development and implementation of a peer-delivered mobile health (mHealth) intervention for adults with serious mental illness.

Objective

The aim of this study was to present a framework that can be used as a guide for researchers and certified peer specialists to develop and implement peer-delivered mHealth interventions in community settings.

Methods

Informed by principles of community-engaged research, we developed the Academic Researchers-Certified Peer Specialists mHealth Research Continuum. Principles of community-engaged research included in the Continuum include the following: (1) develop a clear understanding of the purpose, goal, and population involved in community change; (2) become knowledgeable about all aspects of the community; (3) interact and establish relationships with the community; (4) encourage community self-determination; (5) partner with the community; (6) respect community diversity and culture; (7) activate community assets and develop capacity; (8) maintain flexibility; and (9) commit to long-term collaboration.

Results

Overall, 4 certified peer specialists participated in all phases of intervention development and research. Individuals who participated in the Academic Researchers-Certified Peer Specialists' mHealth Research Continuum collaborated on 5 studies advancing peers' roles in services delivery using mHealth and secured grant funding from a foundation to sustain their study. The Academic Researchers-Certified Peer Specialists' mHealth Research Continuum has created a rare environment of inclusion by combining scientific expertise and certified peer specialists' expertise to achieve a shared vision.

Conclusions

This study delineates a process by which academic researchers and certified peer specialists participated in community-engaged research to develop and implement peer-delivered mHealth interventions in community settings.

SUBMITTER: Fortuna K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7039401 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

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:BackgroundWhile integrated primary healthcare for the management of depression has been well researched, appropriate models of primary care for people with severe and persistent psychotic disorders are poorly understood. In 2010 the NSW (Australia) Health Department commissioned a review of the evidence on "shared care" models of ambulatory mental health services. This focussed on critical factors in the implementation of these models in clinical practice, with a view to providing policy direction. The review excluded evidence about dementia, substance use and personality disorders.MethodsA rapid review involving a search for systematic reviews on The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE). This was followed by a search for papers published since these systematic reviews on Medline and supplemented by limited iterative searching from reference lists.ResultsShared care trials report improved mental and physical health outcomes in some clinical settings with improved social function, self management skills, service acceptability and reduced hospitalisation. Other benefits include improved access to specialist care, better engagement with and acceptability of mental health services. Limited economic evaluation shows significant set up costs, reduced patient costs and service savings often realised by other providers. Nevertheless these findings are not evident across all clinical groups. Gains require substantial cross-organisational commitment, carefully designed and consistently delivered interventions, with attention to staff selection, training and supervision. Effective models incorporated linkages across various service levels, clinical monitoring within agreed treatment protocols, improved continuity and comprehensiveness of services.Conclusions"Shared Care" models of mental health service delivery require attention to multiple levels (from organisational to individual clinicians), and complex service re-design. Re-evaluation of the roles of specialist mental health staff is a critical requirement. As expected, no one model of "shared" care fits diverse clinical groups. On the basis of the available evidence, we recommended a local trial that examined the process of implementation of core principles of shared care within primary care and specialist mental health clinical services.

Project description:BackgroundImplementation researchers have sought ways to use simulations to support the core components of implementation, which typically include assessing the need for change, designing implementation strategies, executing the strategies, and evaluating outcomes. The goal of this paper is to explain how agent-based modeling could fulfill this role.MethodsWe describe agent-based modeling with respect to other simulation methods that have been used in implementation science, using non-technical language that is broadly accessible. We then provide a stepwise procedure for developing agent-based models of implementation processes. We use, as a case study to illustrate the procedure, the implementation of evidence-based smoking cessation practices for persons with serious mental illness (SMI) in community mental health clinics.ResultsFor our case study, we present descriptions of the motivating research questions, specific models used to answer these questions, and a summary of the insights that can be obtained from the models. In the first example, we use a simple form of agent-based modeling to simulate the observed smoking behaviors of persons with SMI in a recently completed trial (IDEAL, Comprehensive Cardiovascular Risk Reduction Trial in Persons with SMI). In the second example, we illustrate how a more complex agent-based approach that includes interactions between patients, providers and site administrators can be used to provide guidance for an implementation intervention that includes training and organizational strategies. This example is based in part on an ongoing project focused on scaling up evidence-based tobacco smoking cessation practices in community mental health clinics in Maryland.ConclusionIn this paper we explain how agent-based models can be used to address implementation science research questions and provide a procedure for setting up simulation models. Through our examples, we show how what-if scenarios can be examined in the implementation process, which are particularly useful in implementation frameworks with adaptive components.

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.