Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35065722›Full record

Trial reportThe lancet. Psychiatry2022

Peer support for discharge from inpatient mental health care versus care as usual in England (ENRICH): a parallel, two-group, individually randomised controlled trial.

Steve Gillard, Stephen Bremner, Akshaykumar Patel, Lucy Goldsmith, Jacqueline Marks, Rhiannon Foster, Rosaleen Morshead, Sarah White, Sarah L Gibson, Andrew Healey and 9 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readRandomized Controlled TrialEquivalence Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in The lancet. Psychiatry, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
12.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 50 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

19 authors at 8 institutions in 2 countries.

Steve GillardSchool of Health Sciences, City, University of London, London, UK. Electronic address: steven.gillard@city.ac.uk.
Stephen BremnerDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health, Brighton and Sussex Medical School, Brighton, UK.
Akshaykumar PatelPragmatic Clinical Trials Unit, Queen Mary, University of London, London, UK.
Lucy GoldsmithPopulation Health Research Institute, St George's, University of London, London, UK.
Jacqueline MarksPopulation Health Research Institute, St George's, University of London, London, UK.
Rhiannon FosterPopulation Health Research Institute, St George's, University of London, London, UK.
Rosaleen MorsheadPopulation Health Research Institute, St George's, University of London, London, UK.
Sarah WhitePopulation Health Research Institute, St George's, University of London, London, UK.
Sarah L GibsonPopulation Health Research Institute, St George's, University of London, London, UK.
Andrew HealeyKing's Health Economics, King's College London, London, UK.
Mike LucockCentre for Applied Research in Health, University of Huddersfield, Huddersfield, UK.
Shalini PatelAdult Community Mental Health Team, South West London and St George's Mental Health NHS Trust, London, UK.
Julie RepperImplementing Recovery through Organisational Change, Nottingham, UK.
Miles RinaldiStrategy and Transformation, South West London and St George's Mental Health NHS Trust, London, UK; Centre for Work and Mental Health, Nordland Hospital Trust, Bodø, Norway.
Alan SimpsonInstitute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.
Michael UssherPopulation Health Research Institute, St George's, University of London, London, UK; Institute for Social Marketing and Health, University of Stirling, Stirling, UK.
Jessica WornerTogether for Mental Wellbeing, London, UK.
Stefan PriebeUnit for Social and Community Psychiatry, Queen Mary, University of London, London, UK.
ENRICH trial study group
St George's, University of London · GBKing's College London · GBQueen Mary University of London · GBSouth West London and St George's Mental Health NHS Trust · GBBrighton and Sussex Medical School · GBCity, University of London · GBUniversity of Huddersfield · GBUniversity of Stirling · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHigh numbers of patients discharged from psychiatric hospital care are readmitted within a year. Peer support for discharge has been suggested as an approach to reducing readmission post-discharge. Implementation has been called for in policy, however, evidence of effectiveness from large rigorous trials is missing. We aimed to establish whether peer support for discharge reduces readmissions in the year post-discharge.

methodsWe report a parallel, two-group, individually randomised, controlled superiority trial, with trial personnel masked to allocation. Patients were adult psychiatric inpatients (age ≥18 years) with at least one previous admission in the preceding 2 years, excluding those who had a diagnosis of any organic mental disorder, or a primary diagnosis of learning disability, an eating disorder, or drug or alcohol dependency, recruited from seven state-funded mental health services in England. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to the intervention (peer support plus care as usual) or control (care as usual) groups by an in-house, online randomisation service, stratified by site and diagnostic group (psychotic disorders, personality disorders, and other eligible non-psychotic disorders) with randomly permuted blocks of randomly varying length to conceal the allocation sequence and achieve the allocation ratio. The peer support group received manual-based, one-to-one peer support, focused on building individual strengths and engaging with activities in the community, beginning during the index admission and continuing for 4 months after discharge, plus care as usual. Care as usual consisted of follow-up by community mental health services within 7 days of discharge. The primary outcome was psychiatric readmission 12 months after discharge (number of patients readmitted at least once), analysed on an intention-to-treat basis. All patients were included in a safety analysis, excluding those who withdrew consent for use of their data. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN10043328. The trial was complete at the time of reporting.

findingsBetween Dec 1, 2016, and Feb 8, 2019, 590 patients were recruited and randomly assigned, with 294 allocated to peer support (287 included in the analysis after withdrawals and loss to follow-up), and 296 to care as usual (291 in the analysis). Mean age was 39·7 years (SD 13·7; range 18-75). 306 patients were women, 267 were men, three were transgender, and two preferred not to say. 353 patients were White, 94 were Black, African, Caribbean, or Black British, 68 were Asian or Asian British, 48 were of mixed or multiple ethnic groups, and 13 were of other ethnic groups. In the peer support group, 136 (47%) of 287 patients were readmitted at least once within 12 months of discharge. 146 (50%) of 291 were readmitted in the care as usual group. The adjusted risk ratio of readmission was 0·97 (95% CI 0·82-1·14; p=0·68), and the adjusted odds ratio for readmission was 0·93 (95% CI 0·66-1·30; p=0·68). The unadjusted risk difference was 0·03 (95% CI -0·11 to 0·05; p=0·51) in favour of the peer support group. Serious adverse events were infrequent (67 events) and similar between groups (34 in the peer support group, 33 in the care as usual group). Threat to life (self-harm) was the most common serious adverse event (35 [52%] of 67 serious adverse events). 391 other adverse events were reported, with self-harm (not life threatening) the most common (189 [48%] of 391).

interpretationOne-to-one peer support for discharge from inpatient psychiatric care, plus care as usual, was not superior to care as usual alone in the 12 months after discharge. This definitive, high-quality trial addresses uncertainty in the evidence base and suggests that peer support should not be implemented to reduce readmission post-discharge for patients at risk of readmission. Further research needs to be done to improve engagement with peer support in high-need groups, and to explore differential effects of peer support for people from different ethnic communities.

fundingUK National Institute for Health Research.

Indexed as

Peer GroupAdultAgedCounselingEnglandFemaleHospitals, PsychiatricHumansMaleMental DisordersMiddle AgedPatient DischargePatient ReadmissionSingle-Blind Method

Identifiers

PMID35065722
PMCPMC8776565
OpenAlexW4205170341

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.