Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31165708›Full record

ArticleJMIR formative research2019

A Peer-Led Electronic Mental Health Recovery App in a Community-Based Public Mental Health Service: Pilot Trial.

Amelia Gulliver, Michelle Banfield, Alyssa R Morse, Julia Reynolds, Sarah Miller, Connie Galati

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR formative research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Operationalizing the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research to build and support the lived experience workforce in direct health service provision.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Amelia GulliverCentre for Mental Health Research, Research School of Population Health, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6351-9844
Michelle BanfieldCentre for Mental Health Research, Research School of Population Health, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3024-1687
Alyssa R MorseCentre for Mental Health Research, Research School of Population Health, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6948-1082
Julia ReynoldsCentre for Mental Health Research, Research School of Population Health, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9910-0455
Sarah MillerCanberra Health Services, Canberra, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7288-6002
Connie GalatiCanberra Health Services, Canberra, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1759-0791
Australian National University · AUAct Health · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is an increasing need for peer workers (people with lived experience of mental health problems who support others) to work alongside consumers to improve recovery and outcomes. In addition, new forms of technology (tablet or mobile apps) can deliver services in an engaging and innovative way. However, there is a need to evaluate interventions in real-world settings.

objectiveThis exploratory proof-of-concept study aimed to determine if a peer worker-led electronic mental health (e-mental health) recovery program is a feasible, acceptable, and effective adjunct to usual care for people with moderate-to-severe mental illness.

methodsOverall, 6 consumers and 5 health service staff participated in the evaluation of a peer-led recovery app delivered at a community-based public mental health service. The peer worker and other health professional staff invited attendees at the drop-in medication clinics to participate in the trial during June to August 2017. Following the intervention period, participants were also invited by the peer worker to complete the evaluation in a separate room with the researcher. Consumers were explicitly informed that participation in the research evaluation was entirely voluntary. Consumer evaluation measures at postintervention included recovery and views on the acceptability of the program and its delivery. Interviews with staff focused on the acceptability and feasibility of the app itself and integrating a peer worker into the health care service.

resultsConsumer recruitment in the research component of the study (n=6) fell substantially short of the target number of participants (n=30). However, from those who participated, both staff and consumers were highly satisfied with the peer worker and somewhat satisfied with the app. Health care staff overall believed that the addition of the peer worker was highly beneficial to both the consumers and staff.

conclusionsThe preliminary findings from this proof-of-concept pilot study suggest that a peer-led program may be a feasible and acceptable method of working on recovery in this population. However, the e-mental health program did not appear feasible in this setting. In addition, recruitment was challenging in this particular group, and it is important to note that these study findings may not be generalizable. Despite this, ensuring familiarity of technology in the target population before implementing e-mental health interventions is likely to be of benefit.

Indexed as

computers, handheldmental disordersmental health recoverymental health services, communitypeer workpilot study

Identifiers

PMID31165708
PMCPMC6746099
OpenAlexW2943487479

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.