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

Journal: BMC health services research

Volume: 24

Issue: 1

Year of Publication: 2024

Affiliated Institutions:  Department of Psychiatry II, Ulm University, Ulm, Germany. maria.haun@uni-ulm.de. Department of Social Work, Ben Gurion University of the Negev, Be'er Sheva, Israel. East London NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK. Centre for Mental Health Law and Policy, Indian Law Society, Pune, India. Department of Psychiatry II, Ulm University, Ulm, Germany. Butabika National Referral Hospital, Kampala, Uganda. Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany. Department of Health Systems, Impact Evaluation and Policy, Ifakara Health Institute, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. School of Health Sciences, Institute of Mental Health, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.

Abstract summary 

Peer 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).6 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.Across 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).This 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.

Authors & Co-authors:  Haun Maria M Adler Ben-Dor Inbar I Hall Cerdic C Kalha Jasmine J Korde Palak P Moran Galia G Müller-Stierlin Annabel S AS Niwemuhwezi Jackline J Nixdorf Rebecca R Puschner Bernd B Ramesh Mary M Charles Ashleigh A Krumm Silvia S

Study Outcome 

Source Link: Visit source

Statistics
Citations :  Repper J, Carter T. A review of the literature on peer support in mental health services. J Ment Health. 2011;20:392–411. doi: 10.3109/09638237.2011.583947.
Authors :  13
Identifiers
Doi : 159
SSN : 1472-6963
Study Population
Male,Female
Mesh Terms
Humans
Other Terms
Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR);Focus groups;Implementation facilitators and barriers;Low-, middle- and high-income countries;Peer support
Study Design
Cross Sectional Study
Study Approach
Qualitative
Country of Study
Uganda
Publication Country
England