AIMS: A range of peer worker roles are being introduced into mental health services internationally. There is some evidence that attests to the benefits of peer workers for the people they support but formal trial evidence in inconclusive, in part because the change model underpinning peer support-based interventions is underdeveloped. Complex intervention evaluation guidance suggests that understandings of how an intervention is associated with change in outcomes should be modelled, theoretically and empirically, before the intervention can be robustly evaluated. This paper aims to model the change mechanisms underlying peer worker interventions. METHODS: In a qualitative, comparative case study of ten peer worker initiatives in statutory and voluntary sector mental health services in England in-depth interviews were carried out with 71 peer workers, service users, staff and managers, exploring their experiences of peer working. Using a Grounded Theory approach we identified core processes within the peer worker role that were productive of change for service users supported by peer workers. RESULTS: Key change mechanisms were: (i) building trusting relationships based on shared lived experience; (ii) role-modelling individual recovery and living well with mental health problems; (iii) engaging service users with mental health services and the community. Mechanisms could be further explained by theoretical literature on role-modelling and relationship in mental health services. We were able to model process and downstream outcomes potentially associated with peer worker interventions. CONCLUSIONS: An empirically and theoretically grounded change model can be articulated that usefully informs the development, evaluation and planning of peer worker interventions.
AIMS: A range of peer worker roles are being introduced into mental health services internationally. There is some evidence that attests to the benefits of peer workers for the people they support but formal trial evidence in inconclusive, in part because the change model underpinning peer support-based interventions is underdeveloped. Complex intervention evaluation guidance suggests that understandings of how an intervention is associated with change in outcomes should be modelled, theoretically and empirically, before the intervention can be robustly evaluated. This paper aims to model the change mechanisms underlying peer worker interventions. METHODS: In a qualitative, comparative case study of ten peer worker initiatives in statutory and voluntary sector mental health services in England in-depth interviews were carried out with 71 peer workers, service users, staff and managers, exploring their experiences of peer working. Using a Grounded Theory approach we identified core processes within the peer worker role that were productive of change for service users supported by peer workers. RESULTS: Key change mechanisms were: (i) building trusting relationships based on shared lived experience; (ii) role-modelling individual recovery and living well with mental health problems; (iii) engaging service users with mental health services and the community. Mechanisms could be further explained by theoretical literature on role-modelling and relationship in mental health services. We were able to model process and downstream outcomes potentially associated with peer worker interventions. CONCLUSIONS: An empirically and theoretically grounded change model can be articulated that usefully informs the development, evaluation and planning of peer worker interventions.
Entities:
Keywords:
Change model; mental health research; peer support; qualitative research
Authors: Steve G Gillard; Christine Edwards; Sarah L Gibson; Katherine Owen; Christine Wright Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2013-05-24 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Ruth Tennant; Louise Hiller; Ruth Fishwick; Stephen Platt; Stephen Joseph; Scott Weich; Jane Parkinson; Jenny Secker; Sarah Stewart-Brown Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2007-11-27 Impact factor: 3.186
Authors: Matthew Chinman; D Keith McInnes; Susan Eisen; Marsha Ellison; Marianne Farkas; Moe Armstrong; Sandra G Resnick Journal: Psychiatr Serv Date: 2017-06-15 Impact factor: 3.084
Authors: A Crowther; A Taylor; R Toney; S Meddings; T Whale; H Jennings; K Pollock; P Bates; C Henderson; J Waring; M Slade Journal: Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci Date: 2018-10-23 Impact factor: 6.892
Authors: Steve Gillard; Rhiannon Foster; Sarah White; Sally Barlow; Rahul Bhattacharya; Paul Binfield; Rachel Eborall; Alison Faulkner; Sarah Gibson; Lucy P Goldsmith; Alan Simpson; Mike Lucock; Jacqui Marks; Rosaleen Morshead; Shalini Patel; Stefan Priebe; Julie Repper; Miles Rinaldi; Michael Ussher; Jessica Worner Journal: BMC Psychiatry Date: 2022-06-01 Impact factor: 4.144
Authors: Jessica P S Tang; Tianyin Liu; Shiyu Lu; C Y Sing; Lesley C Y Sze; Terry Y S Lum; Samson Tse Journal: BMC Geriatr Date: 2022-05-19 Impact factor: 4.070
Authors: Stefan Rennick-Egglestone; Rachel Elliott; Melanie Smuk; Clare Robinson; Sylvia Bailey; Roger Smith; Jeroen Keppens; Hannah Hussain; Kristian Pollock; Pim Cuijpers; Joy Llewellyn-Beardsley; Fiona Ng; Caroline Yeo; James Roe; Ada Hui; Lian van der Krieke; Rianna Walcott; Mike Slade Journal: Trials Date: 2020-07-20 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Mike Slade; Stefan Rennick-Egglestone; Joy Llewellyn-Beardsley; Caroline Yeo; James Roe; Sylvia Bailey; Roger Andrew Smith; Susie Booth; Julian Harrison; Adaresh Bhogal; Patricia Penas Morán; Ada Hui; Dania Quadri; Clare Robinson; Melanie Smuk; Marianne Farkas; Larry Davidson; Lian van der Krieke; Emily Slade; Carmel Bond; Joe Nicholson; Andrew Grundy; Ashleigh Charles; Laurie Hare-Duke; Kristian Pollock; Fiona Ng Journal: JMIR Form Res Date: 2021-05-27