Faith B Dickerson1, Christina L G Savage2, Lucy A B Schweinfurth2, Deborah R Medoff3, Richard W Goldberg3, Melanie Bennett3, Alicia Lucksted3, Matthew Chinman4, Gail Daumit5, Lisa Dixon6, Carlo DiClemente7. 1. Stanley Research Program, Sheppard Pratt Health System` 2. Stanley Research Program, Sheppard Pratt Health System. 3. Mental Illness Research, Education, and Clinical Center, Veterans Affairs Capitol Health Care Network (Veterans Integrated Service Network 5). 4. Mental Illness Research, Education, and Clinical Center, Veterans Affairs Pittsburgh Health Care Network (Veterans Integrated Service Network 4). 5. Welch Center for Prevention, Epidemiology, and Clinical Research, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine. 6. Department of Psychiatry, Columbia University School of Medicine. 7. Department of Psychology, University of Maryland, Baltimore County.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We evaluated a well-specified peer mentor program that enhanced a professionally led smoking cessation group for persons with serious mental illnesses. METHOD: Participants were 8 peer mentors, persons with serious mental illnesses who had successfully quit smoking, and 30 program participants, persons with serious mental illnesses enrolled in a 6-month intervention. Peer mentors were trained and then helped to deliver a smoking cessation group and met with program participants individually. We assessed the mentors' skills after training, their fidelity to the model, and the program's feasibility and acceptability. We also measured the smoking outcomes of the program participants including change in exhaled carbon monoxide, a measure of recent smoking, and aspects of the peer mentor-program participant relationship. RESULTS: Peer mentors attained a mean score of 13.6/14 on role play assessments after training and delivered the intervention with fidelity as assessed by adherence and competence ratings (mean scores of 97% and 93%, respectively). The feasibility and acceptability of the intervention was demonstrated in that 28/30 participants met with their peer mentors regularly and only 1 participant and no peer mentor discontinued in the study. Both parties rated the interpersonal alliance highly, mean of 5.9/7. The program participants had a decline in carbon monoxide levels and number of cigarettes smoked per day (repeated measures ANOVA F = 6.04, p = .008; F = 15.87, p < .001, respectively). A total of 22/30 (73%) made a quit attempt but only 3 (10%) achieved sustained abstinence. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Our study adds to the growing literature about peer-delivered interventions. (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved).
OBJECTIVE: We evaluated a well-specified peer mentor program that enhanced a professionally led smoking cessation group for persons with serious mental illnesses. METHOD:Participants were 8 peer mentors, persons with serious mental illnesses who had successfully quit smoking, and 30 program participants, persons with serious mental illnesses enrolled in a 6-month intervention. Peer mentors were trained and then helped to deliver a smoking cessation group and met with program participants individually. We assessed the mentors' skills after training, their fidelity to the model, and the program's feasibility and acceptability. We also measured the smoking outcomes of the program participants including change in exhaled carbon monoxide, a measure of recent smoking, and aspects of the peer mentor-program participant relationship. RESULTS: Peer mentors attained a mean score of 13.6/14 on role play assessments after training and delivered the intervention with fidelity as assessed by adherence and competence ratings (mean scores of 97% and 93%, respectively). The feasibility and acceptability of the intervention was demonstrated in that 28/30 participants met with their peer mentors regularly and only 1 participant and no peer mentor discontinued in the study. Both parties rated the interpersonal alliance highly, mean of 5.9/7. The program participants had a decline in carbon monoxide levels and number of cigarettes smoked per day (repeated measures ANOVA F = 6.04, p = .008; F = 15.87, p < .001, respectively). A total of 22/30 (73%) made a quit attempt but only 3 (10%) achieved sustained abstinence. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Our study adds to the growing literature about peer-delivered interventions. (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved).
Authors: Judith A Cook; Mary Ellen Copeland; Jessica A Jonikas; Marie M Hamilton; Lisa A Razzano; Dennis D Grey; Carol B Floyd; Walter B Hudson; Rachel T Macfarlane; Tina M Carter; Sherry Boyd Journal: Schizophr Bull Date: 2011-03-14 Impact factor: 9.306
Authors: Jill M Williams; Robert M Anthenelli; Chad D Morris; Joan Treadow; John R Thompson; Carla Yunis; Tony P George Journal: J Clin Psychiatry Date: 2012-05 Impact factor: 4.384
Authors: Robert W Buchanan; Julie Kreyenbuhl; Deanna L Kelly; Jason M Noel; Douglas L Boggs; Bernard A Fischer; Seth Himelhoch; Beverly Fang; Eunice Peterson; Patrick R Aquino; William Keller Journal: Schizophr Bull Date: 2009-12-02 Impact factor: 9.306
Authors: Richard W Goldberg; Faith Dickerson; Alicia Lucksted; Clayton H Brown; Elyssa Weber; Wendy N Tenhula; Julie Kreyenbuhl; Lisa B Dixon Journal: Psychiatr Serv Date: 2013-01 Impact factor: 3.084
Authors: Amanda L Baker; Kristen McCarter; Lisa Brophy; David Castle; Peter J Kelly; Nadine Cocks; Melissa L McKinlay; Catherine Brasier; Ron Borland; Billie Bonevski; Catherine Segan; Donita E Baird; Alyna Turner; Jill M Williams; Erin Forbes; Laura Hayes; John Attia; David Lambkin; Daniel Barker; Rohan Sweeney Journal: Front Psychiatry Date: 2022-05-26 Impact factor: 5.435
Authors: Faith Dickerson; Christina L G Savage; Lucy A B Schweinfurth; Richard W Goldberg; Melanie Bennett; Lisa Dixon; Gail Daumit; Matthew Chinman; Alicia Lucksted Journal: Community Ment Health J Date: 2015-11-24
Authors: Candida R Graham; Roseann Larstone; Brenda Griffiths; Sarah de Leeuw; Lesley Anderson; Stephanie Powell-Hellyer; Nansi Long Journal: J Nerv Ment Dis Date: 2017-11 Impact factor: 2.254