Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33606048›Full record

ArticleSocial psychiatry and psychiatric epidemiology2021

Developing and testing a principle-based fidelity index for peer support in mental health services.

S Gillard, N Banach, E Barlow, J Byrne, R Foster, L Goldsmith, J Marks, C McWilliam, R Morshead, K Stepanian and 3 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Social psychiatry and psychiatric epidemiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
5.2field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Investigating the Fidelity of Digital Peer Support: A Preliminary Approach using Natural Language Processing to Scale High-Fidelity Digital Peer Support.Biomedical engineering systems and technologies, international joint conference, BIOSTEC ... revised selected papers. BIOSTEC (Conference) · 2023
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  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

13 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

S GillardPopulation Health Research Institute, St George's, University of London, London, UK. sgillard@sgul.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9686-2232
N BanachPopulation Health Research Institute, St George's, University of London, London, UK.
E BarlowResearch and Development Department, Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, Hove, UK.
J ByrneResearch and Development Department, Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, Hove, UK.
R FosterPopulation Health Research Institute, St George's, University of London, London, UK.
L GoldsmithPopulation Health Research Institute, St George's, University of London, London, UK.
J MarksPopulation Health Research Institute, St George's, University of London, London, UK.
C McWilliamPopulation Health Research Institute, St George's, University of London, London, UK.
R MorsheadPopulation Health Research Institute, St George's, University of London, London, UK.
K StepanianSchool of Human and Health Sciences, University of Huddersfield, Huddersfield, UK.
R TurnerPopulation Health Research Institute, St George's, University of London, London, UK.
A VereySchool of Health Sciences, City, University of London, London, UK.
S WhitePopulation Health Research Institute, St George's, University of London, London, UK.
St George's, University of London · GBSussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust · GBCity, University of London · GBUniversity of Huddersfield · GB

Funding

Department of Health RP-PG-1212-20019NIHR Programme Grants for Applied Research (GB) RP-PG-1212-20019
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeEvidence suggests that the distinctive relational qualities of peer support-compared to clinical-patient relationships-can be eroded in regulated healthcare environments. Measurement of fidelity in trials of peer support is lacking. This paper reports the development and testing of a fidelity index for one-to-one peer support in mental health services, designed to assess fidelity to principles that characterise the distinctiveness of peer support.

methodsA draft index was developed using expert panels of service user researchers and people doing peer support, informed by an evidence-based, peer support principles framework. Two rounds of testing took place in 24 mental health services providing peer support in a range of settings. Fidelity was assessed through interviews with peer workers, their supervisors and people receiving peer support. Responses were tested for spread and internal consistency, independently double rated for inter-rater reliability, with feedback from interviewees and service user researchers used to refine the index.

resultsA fidelity index for one-to-one peer support in mental health services was produced with good psychometric properties. Fidelity is assessed in four principle-based domains; building trusting relationships based on shared lived experience; reciprocity and mutuality; leadership, choice and control; building strengths and making connections to community.

conclusionsThe index offers potential to improve the evidence base for peer support in mental health services, enabling future trials to assess fidelity of interventions to peer support principles, and service providers a means of ensuring that peer support retains its distinctive qualities as it is introduced into mental health services.

Indexed as

Mental DisordersMental Health ServicesCounselingHumansPeer GroupPsychometricsReproducibility of ResultsCommunity mental healthFidelity indexPeer supportRandomised controlled trialsSocial supportValidation study

Identifiers

PMID33606048
PMCPMC8429155
OpenAlexW3129520440

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.