OBJECTIVE: Qualitative research has identified personal costs and benefits for peer supporters associated with their role; however, quantitative evidence is sparse. This study used quantitative methods to explore relationships in experiences of providing peer support with constructs of empowerment, hope, recovery, quality of life and internalised stigma. Differences were examined for those in statutory versus non-statutory services; who had themselves received peer support versus those who had not and who identified having had negative experiences in clinical teams versus those without such experiences. METHODS: A cross-sectional online and postal survey was undertaken in tandem with a linked consensus study. In all, 147 peer supporters were recruited from a variety of organisations across the United Kingdom. Validated questionnaires were used to examine constructs. Instruments created for the study measured peer support experiences, and personal costs and benefits involved. Correlations were calculated and results informed further regression analysis. Chi-square tests and independent samples t-tests tested group differences. RESULTS: Peer supporters indicated they experienced almost twice as many role-related personal benefits than personal costs. Benefits included improvements to mental health and well-being, reduced use of services, increased social functioning and development of skills. Total number of personal costs experienced was significantly negatively related to peer supporters' empowerment and quality of life. There were no significant differences between the groups examined. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: An accumulation of personal costs may result in reduced quality of life; however, costs can be minimised by organisations. Limitations of the research are discussed and recommendations for future research are made including the need for longitudinal research.
OBJECTIVE: Qualitative research has identified personal costs and benefits for peer supporters associated with their role; however, quantitative evidence is sparse. This study used quantitative methods to explore relationships in experiences of providing peer support with constructs of empowerment, hope, recovery, quality of life and internalised stigma. Differences were examined for those in statutory versus non-statutory services; who had themselves received peer support versus those who had not and who identified having had negative experiences in clinical teams versus those without such experiences. METHODS: A cross-sectional online and postal survey was undertaken in tandem with a linked consensus study. In all, 147 peer supporters were recruited from a variety of organisations across the United Kingdom. Validated questionnaires were used to examine constructs. Instruments created for the study measured peer support experiences, and personal costs and benefits involved. Correlations were calculated and results informed further regression analysis. Chi-square tests and independent samples t-tests tested group differences. RESULTS: Peer supporters indicated they experienced almost twice as many role-related personal benefits than personal costs. Benefits included improvements to mental health and well-being, reduced use of services, increased social functioning and development of skills. Total number of personal costs experienced was significantly negatively related to peer supporters' empowerment and quality of life. There were no significant differences between the groups examined. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: An accumulation of personal costs may result in reduced quality of life; however, costs can be minimised by organisations. Limitations of the research are discussed and recommendations for future research are made including the need for longitudinal research.
Entities:
Keywords:
Peer support; empowerment; quality of life; recovery; stigma
Authors: Reham Shalaby; Pamela Spurvey; Michelle Knox; Rebecca Rathwell; Wesley Vuong; Shireen Surood; Liana Urichuk; Mark Snaterse; Andrew J Greenshaw; Xin-Min Li; Vincent I O Agyapong Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-03-23 Impact factor: 3.390