Evaluation of lived experience Peer Support intervention for mental health service consumers in Primary Care (PS-PC): study protocol for a stepped-wedge cluster randomised controlled trial.
Cluster-randomised trial
Consumers
Lived experience workforce
Mental health
Mental health services
Peer workers
Primary care
Journal
Trials
ISSN: 1745-6215
Titre abrégé: Trials
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101263253
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
14 May 2024
14 May 2024
Historique:
received:
12
02
2024
accepted:
07
05
2024
medline:
15
5
2024
pubmed:
15
5
2024
entrez:
14
5
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The demand for mental health services in Australia is substantial and has grown beyond the capacity of the current workforce. As a result, it is currently difficult for many to access secondary healthcare providers. Within the secondary healthcare sector, however, peer workers who have lived experience of managing mental health conditions have been increasingly employed to intentionally use their journey of recovery in supporting others living with mental health conditions and their communities. Currently, the presence of peer workers in primary care has been limited, despite the potential benefits of providing supports in conjunction with GPs and secondary healthcare providers. This stepped-wedge cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT) aims to evaluate a lived experience peer support intervention for accessing mental health care in primary care (PS-PC). Four medical practices across Australia will be randomly allocated to switch from control to intervention, until all practices are delivering the PS-PC intervention. The study will enrol 66 patients at each practice (total sample size of 264). Over a period of 3-4 months, 12 h of practical and emotional support provided by lived experience peer workers will be available to participants. Scale-based questionnaires will inform intervention efficacy in terms of mental health outcomes (e.g., self-efficacy) and other health outcomes (e.g., healthcare-related costs) over four time points. Other perspectives will be explored through scales completed by approximately 150 family members or carers (carer burden) and 16 peer workers (self-efficacy) pre- and post-intervention, and 20 medical practice staff members (attitudes toward peer workers) at the end of each study site's involvement in the intervention. Interviews (n = 60) and six focus groups held toward the end of each study site's involvement will further explore the views of participants, family members or carers, peer workers, and practice staff to better understand the efficacy and acceptability of the intervention. This mixed-methods, multi-centre, stepped-wedge controlled study will be the first to evaluate the implementation of peer workers in the primary care mental health care sector. Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) ACTRN12623001189617. Registered on 17 November 2023, https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=386715.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The demand for mental health services in Australia is substantial and has grown beyond the capacity of the current workforce. As a result, it is currently difficult for many to access secondary healthcare providers. Within the secondary healthcare sector, however, peer workers who have lived experience of managing mental health conditions have been increasingly employed to intentionally use their journey of recovery in supporting others living with mental health conditions and their communities. Currently, the presence of peer workers in primary care has been limited, despite the potential benefits of providing supports in conjunction with GPs and secondary healthcare providers.
METHODS
METHODS
This stepped-wedge cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT) aims to evaluate a lived experience peer support intervention for accessing mental health care in primary care (PS-PC). Four medical practices across Australia will be randomly allocated to switch from control to intervention, until all practices are delivering the PS-PC intervention. The study will enrol 66 patients at each practice (total sample size of 264). Over a period of 3-4 months, 12 h of practical and emotional support provided by lived experience peer workers will be available to participants. Scale-based questionnaires will inform intervention efficacy in terms of mental health outcomes (e.g., self-efficacy) and other health outcomes (e.g., healthcare-related costs) over four time points. Other perspectives will be explored through scales completed by approximately 150 family members or carers (carer burden) and 16 peer workers (self-efficacy) pre- and post-intervention, and 20 medical practice staff members (attitudes toward peer workers) at the end of each study site's involvement in the intervention. Interviews (n = 60) and six focus groups held toward the end of each study site's involvement will further explore the views of participants, family members or carers, peer workers, and practice staff to better understand the efficacy and acceptability of the intervention.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSIONS
This mixed-methods, multi-centre, stepped-wedge controlled study will be the first to evaluate the implementation of peer workers in the primary care mental health care sector.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
BACKGROUND
Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) ACTRN12623001189617. Registered on 17 November 2023, https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=386715.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38745299
doi: 10.1186/s13063-024-08165-y
pii: 10.1186/s13063-024-08165-y
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Clinical Trial Protocol
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
319Subventions
Organisme : National Health and Medical Research Council (AU)
ID : 2022527
Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Australian Burden of Disease Study 2023. Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare; 2022. [updated 2023 Nov. 24]. Available from: https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/burden-of-disease/australian-burden-of-disease-study-2023 . Cited 2024 Feb 11.
Commonwealth of Australia. National Study of Mental Health and Wellbeing. Canberra (AU): Austraian Bureau of Statistics; 2020–22 [updated 2023 Dec. 1]. Available from: https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/health/mental-health/national-study-mental-health-and-wellbeing/latest-release . Cited 2024 Feb 11.
Commonwealth of Australia. Mental Health, Report no. 95. Canberra: Productivity Commission; 2020 [updated 2020 Nov. 11]. Available from: https://www.pc.gov.au/inquiries/completed/mental-health/report . Cited 2024 Feb 11 .
Simmons MB, Grace D, Fava NJ, Coates D, Dimopoulos-Bick T, Batchelor S, et al. The experiences of youth mental health peer workers over time: a qualitative study with longitudinal analysis. Community Ment Health J. 2020;56:906–14.
doi: 10.1007/s10597-020-00554-2
pubmed: 31970578
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Mental health services activity monitoring quarterly data. Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare; 2022 [updated 2023 Dec.]. Available from: https://www.aihw.gov.au/mental-health/monitoring/mental-health-services-activity-monitoring . Cited 2024 Feb 11.
Commonwealth of Australia. Monitoring mental health and suicide prevention reform: National Report 2021. Sydney: National Mental Health Commission; 2022 [updated 2022 April 12]. Available from: https://www.mentalhealthcommission.gov.au/publications/national-report-2021-summary . Cited 2023 Nov 11.
Leamy M, Bird V, Le Boutillier C, Williams J, Slade M. Conceptual framework for personal recovery in mental health: systematic review and narrative synthesis. Br J Psychiatry. 2011;199(6):445–52.
doi: 10.1192/bjp.bp.110.083733
pubmed: 22130746
State of Victoria. Royal Commission into Victoria’s Mental Health System, Final Report, Parl Paper No. 202. Victoria: 2018–21 [updated 2024 Feb. 1]. Available from: https://www.vic.gov.au/royal-commission-victorias-mental-health-system-final-report . Cited 2024 Feb 24.
Pirkis J, Currier D, Harris M, Mihalopoulos C, Arya V, Banfield M, et al. Evaluation of the better access initiative - final report. [Internet] Victoria: The University of Melbourne; 2022 Dec. 8. [updated 2022 Dec. 12]. Available from: https://www.health.gov.au/resources/collections/evaluation-of-the-better-access-initiative-final-report . Cited 2023 Nov 24.
Lawn S, Kaine C, Stevenson J, McMahon J. Australian mental health consumers’ experiences of service engagement and disengagement: a descriptive study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(19):10464.
doi: 10.3390/ijerph181910464
pubmed: 34639765
pmcid: 8508315
Puschner B, Repper J, Mahlke C, Nixdorf R, Basangwa D, Nakku J, et al. Using peer support in developing empowering mental health services (UPSIDES): background, rationale and methodology. Ann Glob Health. 2019;85(1):53.
doi: 10.5334/aogh.2435
pubmed: 30951270
pmcid: 6634474
Byrne L, Wang L, Roennfeldt H, Chapman M, Darwin L, Castles C, Craze L, Saunders M. National lived experience workforce development guidelines. Canberra: National Mental Health Commission; 2021. [updated 2023 Sept. 26]. Available from: https://www.mentalhealthcommission.gov.au/lived-experience/lived-experience-workforces/peer-experience-workforce-guidelines/national-lived-experience-%28peer%29-workforce-develop/the-national-lived-experience-workforce-developmen . Cited 2023 Nov 29.
Stratford AC, Halpin M, Phillips K, Skerritt F, Beales A, Cheng V, et al. The growth of peer support: an international charter. J Ment Health. 2019;28(6):627–32.
doi: 10.1080/09638237.2017.1340593
pubmed: 28682640
Chinman M, George P, Dougherty RH, Daniels AS, Ghose SS, Swift A, et al. Peer support services for individuals with serious mental illnesses: assessing the evidence. Psychiatr Serv. 2014;65(4):429–41.
doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.201300244
pubmed: 24549400
Repper J, Carter T. A review of the literature on peer support in mental health services. J Ment Health. 2011;20(4):392–411.
doi: 10.3109/09638237.2011.583947
pubmed: 21770786
Brasier C, Roennfeldt H, Hamilton B, Martel A, Hill N, Stratford A, et al. Peer support work for people experiencing mental distress attending the emergency department: exploring the potential. Emerg Med Australas. 2022;34(1):78–84.
doi: 10.1111/1742-6723.13848
pubmed: 34490720
Johnson S, Mason O, Osborn D, Milton A, Henderson C, Marston L, et al. Randomised controlled trial of the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a peer-delivered self-management intervention to prevent relapse in crisis resolution team users: study protocol. BMJ Open. 2017;7(10):e015665.
pubmed: 29079602
pmcid: 5665309
Hancock N, Scanlan JN, Honey A, Bundy AC, O’Shea K. Recovery assessment scale–domains and stages (RAS-DS): its feasibility and outcome measurement capacity. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2015;49(7):624–33.
doi: 10.1177/0004867414564084
pubmed: 25526940
Lawn S, Smith A, Hunter K. Mental health peer support for hospital avoidance and early discharge: an Australian example of consumer driven and operated service. J Ment Health. 2008;17(5):498–508.
doi: 10.1080/09638230701530242
Simpson A, Flood C, Rowe J, Quigley J, Henry S, Hall C, et al. Results of a pilot randomised controlled trial to measure the clinical and cost effectiveness of peer support in increasing hope and quality of life in mental health patients discharged from hospital in the UK. BMC Psychiatry. 2014;14(1):1–14.
doi: 10.1186/1471-244X-14-30
Gillard S, Bremner S, Patel A, Goldsmith L, Marks J, Foster R, et al. Peer support for discharge from inpatient mental health care versus care as usual in England (ENRICH): a parallel, two-group, individually randomised controlled trial. Lancet Psychiatry. 2022;9(2):125–36.
doi: 10.1016/S2215-0366(21)00398-9
pubmed: 35065722
pmcid: 8776565
White S, Foster R, Marks J, Morshead R, Goldsmith L, Barlow S, et al. The effectiveness of one-to-one peer support in mental health services: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Psychiatry. 2020;20(1):534.
doi: 10.1186/s12888-020-02923-3
pubmed: 33176729
pmcid: 7657356
Lyons N, Cooper C, Lloyd-Evans B. A systematic review and meta-analysis of group peer support interventions for people experiencing mental health conditions. BMC Psychiatry. 2021;21(1):1–17.
doi: 10.1186/s12888-021-03321-z
Commonwealth of Australia. Primary Health Networks (PHN) mental health care guidance – initial assessment and referral for mental health care. Canberra: Department of Health and Aged Care; 2019 [updated 2023 Sept. 14]. Available from: https://www.health.gov.au/resources/publications/initial-assessment-and-referral-decision-support-tool-iar-decision-support-tool?language=en . Cited 2023 Nov 11.
Dawda P, Knight A, editors. Experience Based Co-design: a toolkit for Australia. Consumer Health Forum of Australia AHaHA. Canberra: Prestantia Health; 2017 [updated 2017 Dec. 1]. Available from: https://ahha.asn.au/resource/experience-based-co-design-toolkit/ . Cited 2023 Nov 11.
Damschroder LJ, Aron DC, Keith RE, Kirsh SR, Alexander JA, Lowery JC. Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implement Sci. 2009;4(1):1–15.
doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-4-50
Butcher NJ, Monsour A, Mew EJ, Chan A-W, Moher D, Mayo-Wilson E, et al. Guidelines for reporting outcomes in trial protocols: the SPIRIT-outcomes 2022 extension. JAMA. 2022;328(23):2345–56.
doi: 10.1001/jama.2022.21243
pubmed: 36512367
Trial Registration: Evaluation of Lived Experience Peer Support Intervention for Mental Health Service Consumers in Primary Care [Available from: https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=386715 .
Mahlke CI, Priebe S, Heumann K, Daubmann A, Wegscheider K, Bock T. Effectiveness of one-to-one peer support for patients with severe mental illness–a randomised controlled trial. Eur Psychiatry. 2017;42:103–10.
doi: 10.1016/j.eurpsy.2016.12.007
pubmed: 28364685
Graessel E, Berth H, Lichte T, Grau H. Subjective caregiver burden: validity of the 10-item short version of the Burden Scale for Family Caregivers BSFC-s. BMC Geriatr. 2014;14(1):1–9.
doi: 10.1186/1471-2318-14-23
Sekhon M, Cartwright M, Francis JJ. Development of a theory-informed questionnaire to assess the acceptability of healthcare interventions. BMC Health Serv Res. 2022;22(1):279.
doi: 10.1186/s12913-022-07577-3
pubmed: 35232455
pmcid: 8887649
Jerusalem M, Schwarzer R. General self-efficacy scale--revised--English version (Gse-R) [Database record]. APA PSycTests. 1995. Available from: https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Ft18916-000 .
Kessler RC, Andrews G, Colpe LJ, Hiripi E, Mroczek DK, Normand S-L, et al. Short screening scales to monitor population prevalences and trends in non-specific psychological distress. Psychol Med. 2002;32(6):959–76.
doi: 10.1017/S0033291702006074
pubmed: 12214795
Australian Government Department of Health Your Experience of Service: Australia's National Mental Health Consumer Experience of Care Survey. Department of Health Victoria. 2015. Available from: https://www.amhocn.org/training-and-service-development/experience-measures/application-for-use .
Herdman M, Gudex C, Lloyd A, Janssen M, Kind P, Parkin D, et al. Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Qual Life Res. 2011;20:1727–36.
doi: 10.1007/s11136-011-9903-x
pubmed: 21479777
pmcid: 3220807
Gräßel E, Berth H, Lichte T, Grau H. Subjective caregiver burden: validity of the 10-item short version of the Burden Scale for Family Caregivers BSFC-s. BMC Geriatr. 2014;14(1):1–9.
Gräßel E, Chiu T, Oliver R. Development and validation of the Burden Scale for Family Caregivers (BSFC). Toronto: COTA Comprehensive Rehabilitation and Mental Health Services; 2003.
Forman J, Damschroder LJ. Qualitative content analysis. In: Jacoby L, Siminoff L, editors. Empirical research for bioethics: a primer. Oxford: Elsevier Publishing; 2008.
Leung L. Validity, reliability, and generalizability in qualitative research. J Fam Med Prim Care. 2015;4(3):324.
doi: 10.4103/2249-4863.161306
Damschroder LJ, Reardon CM, Sperber N, Robinson CH, Fickel JJ, Oddone EZ. Implementation evaluation of the Telephone Lifestyle Coaching (TLC) program: organizational factors associated with successful implementation. Transl Behav Med. 2017;7(2):233–41.
doi: 10.1007/s13142-016-0424-6
pubmed: 27688249