Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39394564›Full record

ArticleBMC psychiatry2024

Measuring fidelity to manualised peer support for people with severe mental health conditions: development and psychometric evaluation of the UPSIDES fidelity scale.

Ramona Hiltensperger, Yasuhiro Kotera, Philip Wolf, Rebecca Nixdorf, Ashleigh Charles, Marianne Farkas, Alina Grayzman, Jasmine Kalha, Palak Korde, Candelaria Mahlke and 8 more

Abstract readMulticenter Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC psychiatry, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Trial
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

18 authors.

Ramona HiltenspergerDepartment of Psychiatry II, Ulm University, Ulm, Germany. ramona.hiltensperger@uni-ulm.de.
Yasuhiro KoteraSchool of Health Sciences, Institute of Mental Health, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Philip WolfDepartment of Psychiatry II, Ulm University, Ulm, Germany.
Rebecca NixdorfDepartment of Psychiatry, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Ashleigh CharlesSchool of Health Sciences, Institute of Mental Health, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Marianne FarkasCenter for Psychiatric Rehabilitation, Boston University, Boston, USA.
Alina GrayzmanDepartment of Social Work, Ben Gurion University of the Negev, Be'er Sheva, Israel.
Jasmine KalhaCentre for Mental Health Law & Policy, Indian Law Society, Pune, India.
Palak KordeCentre for Mental Health Law & Policy, Indian Law Society, Pune, India.
Candelaria MahlkeDepartment of Psychiatry, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Galia MoranDepartment of Social Work, Ben Gurion University of the Negev, Be'er Sheva, Israel.
Richard MpangoButabika National Referral Hospital, Kampala, Uganda.
Rachel MteiIfakara Health Institute, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
Grace RyanLondon School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Centre of Global Mental Health, London, UK.
Donat ShambaIfakara Health Institute, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
Lisa WenzelDepartment of Psychiatry II, Ulm University, Ulm, Germany.
Mike Slade *School of Health Sciences, Institute of Mental Health, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Bernd Puschner *Department of Psychiatry II, Ulm University, Ulm, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPeer support workers provide support for people experiencing mental health conditions based on their own lived experience of mental health problems. Assessing fidelity to core ingredients of peer support is vital for successful implementation and intervention delivery. Modifications to its implementation are needed when scaling up to different socio-economic settings, raising further uncertainty about fidelity. As part of a large multi-centre study on peer support called Using Peer Support In Developing Empowering Mental Health Services (UPSIDES), we developed and evaluated the psychometric properties of the UPSIDES Fidelity Scale.

methodsWe constructed the fidelity scale based on an initial item pool developed through international expert consultation and iterative feedback. Scale refinement involved site-level expert consultation and translation, resulting in a service user-rated 28-item version and a peer support worker-rated 21-item version assessing receipt, engagement, enactment, competence, communication and peer support-specific components. Both versions are available in six languages: English, German, Luganda, Kiswahili, Hebrew and Gujarati. The scale was then evaluated at six study sites across five countries, with peer support workers and their clients completing their respective ratings four and eight months after initial peer support worker contact. Psychometric evaluation included analysis of internal consistency, construct validity and criterion validity.

resultsFor the 315 participants, item statistics showed a skewed distribution of fidelity values but no restriction of range. Internal consistency was adequate (range α = 0.675 to 0.969) for total scores and all subscales in both versions. Confirmatory factor analysis indicated acceptable fit of the proposed factor structure for the service user version (χ2/df = 2.746; RMSEA = 0.084) and moderate fit for the peer support worker version (χ2/df = 3.087; RMSEA = 0.093). Both versions showed significant correlations with external criteria: number of peer support sessions; perceived recovery orientation of the intervention; and severity of illness.

conclusionsThe scale demonstrates good reliability, construct and criterion validity, making it a pragmatic and psychometrically acceptable measure for assessing fidelity to a manualised peer support worker intervention. Recommendations for use, along with research and practical implications, are addressed. As validated, multi-lingual tool that adapts to diverse settings this scale is uniquely positioned for global application.

trial registrationISRCTN, ISRCTN26008944. Registered on 30 October 2019.

Indexed as

Mental DisordersMental Health ServicesPeer GroupPsychometricsAdultFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedReproducibility of ResultsSocial SupportFidelityLived experiencePeer supportPsychometric evaluationRecoveryScale development

Identifiers

PMID39394564
PMCPMC11468091

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.