Search results

Patient and public involvement (PPI) is increasingly central to the delivery of health services research. However, it has proved challenging to evaluate the impact of PPI on the implementation of research into clinical practice and health service delivery. The purpose of this paper is to develop and test a conceptual model explaining how PPI in the research process might impact on implementation.

A scoping review of knowledge translation and implementation science literature was performed to develop a conceptual model of the impact of PPI in research on implementation. A retrospective case study of a research project was used to illustrate the model.

The authors identified five domains in which PPI can impact on the implementation of research into practice. The review demonstrated that successful implementation depends on developing relational models of knowledge production, valuing experiential knowledge, engaging in collaborative practice, making use of knowledge brokers or tools for knowledge facilitation and embedding these factors into the implementation context. In the case study the authors were able to find examples that illustrated each of the five domains of the model.

The paper builds on existing endeavour to evaluate the impact of PPI in research, demonstrating that it is possible to model, conceptually, the processes whereby PPI in research might impact on practice and service delivery. By illustrating those processes through the exemplar case the authors also demonstrate the potential for the model to be “operationalised”, allowing the impacts, on practice, of PPI in research to be systematically and directly evidenced.

Peer support is increasingly being introduced into mainstream mental health services internationally. The distinctiveness of peer support, compared to other mental health support, has been linked to values underpinning peer support. Evidence suggests that there are challenges to maintaining those values in the context of highly standardised organisational environments. The purpose of this paper is to describe a “principles-based” approach to developing and evaluating a new peer worker role in mental health services.

A set of peer support values was generated through systematic review of research about one-to-one peer support, and a second set produced by a UK National Expert Panel of people sharing, leading or researching peer support from a lived experience perspective. Value sets were integrated by the research team – including researchers working from a lived experience perspective – to produce a principles framework for developing and evaluating new peer worker roles.

Five principles referred in detail to: relationships based on shared lived experience; reciprocity and mutuality; validating experiential knowledge; leadership, choice and control; discovering strengths and making connections. Supporting the diversity of lived experience that people bring to peer support applied across principles.

The principles framework underpinned development of a handbook for a new peer worker role, and informed a fidelity index designed to measure the extent to which peer support values are maintained in practice. Given the diversity of peer support, the authors caution against prescriptive frameworks that might “codify” peer support and note that lived experience should be central to shaping and leading evaluation of peer support.

This paper adds to the literature on peer support in mental health by describing a systematic approach to understanding how principles and values underpin peer worker roles in the context of mental health services. This paper informs an innovative, principles-based approach to developing a handbook and fidelity index for a randomised controlled trial. Lived experiences of mental distress brought to the research by members of the research team and the expert advisors shaped the way this research was undertaken.

Steve Gillard and Estelle Stacey of Slough User‐Led Consultation (SULC) describe the particular benefits of people with experience of mental health problems undertaking research if the service users being interviewed are to feel able to talk freely and openly about their views and experiences of services

The purpose of this paper is to explore user leadership in peer support practice by reviewing existing evidence and models of delivery, investigating the recently developed term of “authentic” peer support and reflecting on challenges and opportunities for the future.

The paper presents and discusses views and evidence on peer support policy and practice, found in the current literature, grass roots peer support experts’ presentations and contributions to conferences, a national peer support network, key policy documents and the work of Together for Mental Wellbeing.

Peer support benefits are widely documented as is its history, rooted in user leadership. More recently, peer support is acknowledged in a number of key mental health policy documents as seen to be key in the response to current quality and cost agendas. There has been a simultaneous increase of “formal” peer support as practiced by large service providers and a gradual shift away from its “user led” origins. Against the background of the current economic climate and implications for mental health services, there seems to be a need to pause and reflect on current peer support practice and rethink the way forward.

This paper's emphasis on the authenticity of peer support covers new ground in relation to an important topical debate.

A range of one-to-one, group and online approaches to peer support are increasingly complementing formal mental health service delivery. Evidence is emerging of the potential benefits and challenges of peer support for individuals, communities and organisations. There is more limited evidence describing peer-led peer support networks. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

In an evaluation of Prosper, a peer-led, peer support network and social movement, members of the network played a participatory role in the design, conduct and interpretative work of the evaluation. An online survey, one-to-one interviews and group discussions were used.

The evaluation describes an evolving network with planning and development meetings constituting core activity for many members alongside a monthly training programme supporting people to set up their own activities. There were strong shared values, and consensus that Prosper could strengthen social networks, improve individual well-being and impact on the way people used mental health services. Challenges were identified around feelings of uncertainty and vulnerability in relation to involvement in the network.

The participatory nature of the evaluation adds value to the learning offered. This was a descriptive evaluation; potential is indicated for the more formal modelling and testing of peer-led network and social movement initiatives.

Clarity is needed on the relationship of the network to statutory mental health services – specifically around taking on a “service provider” role – and on the advantages and challenges of a “hybrid” organisational model that combines traditional, hierarchical and new distributed forms of leadership and structure.

Prosper demonstrated potential to create a sense of common culture based on sharing lived experience and mutual peer support, providing an alternative to the traditional culture of mental health services.

This paper offers wider learning derived from evaluation of a highly original initiative in peer leadership, network structure and interface with statutory mental health services.

Background: historical assumptions and knowledge about personality disorders (PDs) have inhibited efforts to improve PD services. Public and patient involvement in research has become a requirement of UK health services research. The potential for people with personal experiences of PD to ‘coproduce’ research knowledge as a means to transform PD services is largely unexplored.Objectives: to consider the extent to which research teams on two recent projects have ‘coproduced’ knowledge about PD, and the potential impact of coproduction on research findings and service delivery.Setting: two qualitative research projects were conducted by teams comprising conventional academic, clinical, service user and carer researchers. Reflective writing by researchers was analysed thematically to explore research objectives.Findings: researchers reported that their high expectations of research coproduction were mostly met, that findings would have been different without involvement of service user and carer researchers, and that the research would have wider credibility because of their involvement.Conclusions: coproduction is characterised by enabling perspectives from outside the conventional clinical‐academic health research team to inform the research decision‐making process, and by self‐conscious reflection to make explicit how findings are shaped as a result. The potential to improve PD services by coproducing knowledge was demonstrated.

The purpose of this paper is to describe a recent experiment in research coproduction in an evaluation of service planning at a London Mental Health NHS Trust. The paper aims to consider whether members of the research team who have themselves been users of mental health services are able to contribute to the research process as “experts by experience”, or if their experiential knowledge is “colonized” within the academic research team.

A qualitative, comparative case study approach was adopted, using structured observations and semi‐structured interviews. Researchers' reflective accounts and a reflective focus group were employed to explore the process of coproduction.

The paper concludes that, far from “colonising” expertise by experience, the experiment builds local capacity in research coproduction and usefully informs a service planning process that reflects the priorities and concerns of a range of stakeholders.

The paper describes a small, local experiment in research coproduction and so findings are limited in their scope. However, the study demonstrates an effective methodological approach to evaluating, empirically, the impact of coproduction on the health services research (HSR) process.

The paper demonstrates the potential for repeated exercises in coproduction to build capacity in collaborative approaches to both HSR and service planning.

The involvement of experts by experience is increasingly a policy requirement in the domains of both health service planning and HSR in the UK. There are very few empirical studies that evaluate the impact of that coproduction.

The purpose of this paper is to outline what peer support is, covering its history, variations and benefits, then goes on to discuss what the challenges have been to authenticity and what the future holds for peer support.

The authors argue for the necessity of service user leadership in peer support based on both the Service User Involvement Directorate’s (SUID’s) experience and UK-wide learning.

Peer support brings wellbeing and confidence benefits both to the supporter and the supported. However, the lack of understanding of what peer support is, the current climate of austerity and over-professionalisation can threaten the transformational power of genuine peer support.

Peer support is always evolving, and there are areas like the criminal justice service and secure services where more work needs to be done.

Commissioners/funders of mental health services should recognise the value of peer support and its potential for better wellbeing outcomes, while understanding the necessity of service user leadership to maximise its beneficial potential.

The paper looks at peer support at the point in time a decade after the formation of the SUID at Together and four years since the UK mental health strategy No Health Without Mental Health (Department of Health, 2011) and explores the challenges faced at a time when the value of peer support is generally accepted in legislation.

This index covers all issues between February 2005 (Volume 9, Issue 1) and November 2008 (Volume 12, Issue 4). Numbers in bold refer to yolume, numbers in brackets refer to issue, with subsequent numbers to pages.