Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38302955›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2024

Perspectives of key informants before and after implementing UPSIDES peer support in mental health services: qualitative findings from an international multi-site study.

Maria Haun, Inbar Adler Ben-Dor, Cerdic Hall, Jasmine Kalha, Palak Korde, Galia Moran, Annabel S Müller-Stierlin, Jackline Niwemuhwezi, Rebecca Nixdorf, Bernd Puschner and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
9.3field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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 8 institutions in 6 countries.

Maria HaunDepartment of Psychiatry II, Ulm University, Ulm, Germany. maria.haun@uni-ulm.de.
Inbar Adler Ben-DorDepartment of Social Work, Ben Gurion University of the Negev, Be'er Sheva, Israel.
Cerdic HallEast London NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Jasmine KalhaCentre for Mental Health Law and Policy, Indian Law Society, Pune, India.
Palak KordeCentre for Mental Health Law and Policy, Indian Law Society, Pune, India.
Galia MoranDepartment of Social Work, Ben Gurion University of the Negev, Be'er Sheva, Israel.
Annabel S Müller-StierlinDepartment of Psychiatry II, Ulm University, Ulm, Germany.
Jackline NiwemuhweziButabika National Referral Hospital, Kampala, Uganda.
Rebecca NixdorfDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Bernd PuschnerDepartment of Psychiatry II, Ulm University, Ulm, Germany.
Mary RameshDepartment of Health Systems, Impact Evaluation and Policy, Ifakara Health Institute, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
Ashleigh Charles *School of Health Sciences, Institute of Mental Health, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Silvia Krumm *Department of Psychiatry II, Ulm University, Ulm, Germany.
Universität Ulm · DEBen-Gurion University of the Negev · ILIndian Law Institute · INButabika Hospital · UGEast London NHS Foundation Trust · GBIfakara Health Institute · TZUniversität Hamburg · DEUniversity of Nottingham · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPeer support is an essential part of recovery-oriented care worldwide. Contextual factors have an impact on the implementation of peer support work. However, research has paid little attention to similarities and differences of implementation factors in settings varying by income-level and cultural values. The aim of this study is to assess the factors influencing the implementation of a peer support intervention across study sites in low-, middle- and high-income countries in line with the Consolidation Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR).

method6 focus groups with a total of 54 key informants with relevant contextual (organisational) knowledge regarding implementation facilitators and barriers were conducted at six study sites Ulm and Hamburg (Germany), Butabika (Uganda), Dar es Salaam (Tanzania), Be'er Sheva (Israel), and Pune (India) before and 1.5 years after the start of UPSIDES peer support. Transcripts were analysed using qualitative content analysis.

resultsAcross study sites key informants reported benefits of peer support for service users and peer support workers as implementation facilitators. At study sites with lower resources, reduced workload for mental health workers and improved access to mental health services through peer support were perceived as implementation facilitators (CFIR Domain 1: Intervention characteristics). The degree of engagement of mental health workers (CFIR Domain 3: Inner Setting/Domain 4: Individuals involved) varied across study sites and was seen either as a barrier (low engagement) or a facilitator (high engagement). Across study sites, adequate training of peer support workers (CFIR Domain 5: Implementation process) was seen as animplementation facilitator, while COVID-19 as well as low resource availability were reported as implementation barriers (CFIR Domain 2: Outer setting).

conclusionsThis study highlights the importance of considering contextual factors when implementing peer support, including previous experience and perceived benefits. Particular attention should be given to organisational benefits such as workload reduction and the allocation of sufficient resources as key drivers in LMICs. In HICs, the potential of organisational benefits for successful implementation should be further investigated and promoted.

Indexed as

COVID-19Mental Health ServicesCounselingHumansIndiaQualitative ResearchTanzaniaConsolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR)Focus groupsImplementation facilitators and barriersLow-, middle- and high-income countriesPeer support

Identifiers

PMID38302955
PMCPMC10835950
OpenAlexW4391450447

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.