Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39261915›Full record

Trial reportBMC health services research2024

Implementing peer support into practice in mental health services: a qualitative comparative case study.

Steve Gillard, Rhiannon Foster, Sarah White, Rahul Bhattacharya, Paul Binfield, Rachel Eborall, Sarah L Gibson, Daniella Harnett, Alan Simpson, Mike Lucock and 5 more

Abstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report 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 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Young Australian Women's Views on Peer Support for Self-Harm: A Qualitative Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025
    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

15 authors.

Steve GillardCity, University of London, London, UK. steven.gillard@city.ac.uk.
Rhiannon FosterCity, University of London, London, UK.
Sarah WhiteSt George's, University of London, London, UK.
Rahul BhattacharyaEast London NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Paul BinfieldEast London NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Rachel EborallSouth London & Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Sarah L GibsonKingston University, Kingston, UK.
Daniella HarnettEast London NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Alan SimpsonKing's College London, London, UK.
Mike LucockUniversity of Huddersfield, Huddersfield, UK.
Jacqueline MarksKingston Hospital, Kingston, UK.
Julie RepperImplementing Recovery through Organisational Change, Nottingham, UK.
Miles RinaldiSouth West London & St George's Mental Health NHS Trust, London, UK.
Anthony SallaCity, University of London, London, UK.
Jessica WornerIndependent Researcher, London, UK.

Funding

Programme Grants for Applied Research RP-PG-1212-20019
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPeer workers are people with personal experience of mental distress, employed within mental health services to support others with similar experiences. Research has identified a range of factors that might facilitate or hinder the introduction of new peer worker roles into mental health services. While there is mixed evidence for the effectiveness of peer worker delivered interventions, there are no studies exploring how implementation might be associated with effect.

methodsThis was a qualitative comparative case study using data from interviews with 20 peer workers and their five supervisors. Peer workers delivered peer support for discharge from inpatient to community mental health care as part of a randomised controlled trial. In the trial, level of participant engagement with peer support was associated with better outcome (hospital readmission). Study sites with higher levels of engagement also had higher scores on a measure of fidelity to peer support principles. We compared data from sites with contrasting levels of engagement and fidelity using an analytical framework derived from implementation theory.

resultsIn high engagement-high fidelity sites, there was regular work with clinical teams preparing for working alongside peer workers, and a positive relationship between staff on inpatient wards and peer workers. The supervisor role was well resourced, and delivery of peer support was highly consistent with the intervention manual. In low engagement-low fidelity sites peer workers were employed in not-for-profit organisations to support people using public mental health services and in rural areas. Supervisors faced constrained resources and experienced barriers to joint working between organisations. In these sites, peer workers could experience challenging relationships with ward staff. Issues of geography and capacity limited opportunities for supervision and team-building, impacting consistency of delivery.

conclusionsThis study provides clear indication that implementation can impact delivery of peer support, with implications for engagement and, potentially, outcomes of peer worker interventions. Resourcing issues can have knock-on effects on consistency of delivery, alongside challenges of access, authority and relationship with clinical teams, especially where peer workers were employed in not-for-profit organisations. Attention needs to be paid to the impact of geography on implementation.

trial registrationISRCTN registry number ISRCTN10043328, registered 28 November 2016.

Indexed as

Mental Health ServicesPeer GroupQualitative ResearchAdultFemaleHumansInterviews as TopicMaleMental DisordersMiddle AgedSocial SupportComparative case study methods.ImplementationLived experienceMental health servicesPeer supportRole adoption

Identifiers

PMID39261915
PMCPMC11391751

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.