Effectiveness of peer-delivered interventions for severe mental illness and depression on clinical and psychosocial outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Daniela C Fuhr, Tatiana Taylor Salisbury, Mary J De Silva, Najia Atif, Nadja van Ginneken, Atif Rahman, Vikram Patel, Daniela C Fuhr, Tatiana Taylor Salisbury, Mary J De Silva, Najia Atif, Nadja van Ginneken, Atif Rahman, Vikram Patel

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate the effectiveness of peer-delivered interventions in improving clinical and psychosocial outcomes among individuals with severe mental illness (SMI) or depression.

Methods: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials comparing a peer-delivered intervention to treatment as usual or treatment delivered by a health professional. Random effect meta-analyses were performed separately for SMI and depression interventions.

Results: Fourteen studies (10 SMI studies, 4 depression studies), all from high-income countries, met the inclusion criteria. For SMI, evidence from three high-quality superiority trials showed small positive effects favouring peer-delivered interventions for quality of life (SMD 0.24, 95 % CI 0.08-0.40, p = 0.003, I (2) = 0 %, n = 639) and hope (SMD 0.24, 95 % CI 0.02-0.46, p = 0.03, I (2) = 65 %, n = 967). Results of two SMI equivalence trials indicated that peers may be equivalent to health professionals in improving clinical symptoms (SMD -0.14, 95 % CI -0.57 to 0.29, p = 0.51, I (2) = 0 %, n = 84) and quality of life (SMD -0.11, 95 % CI -0.42 to 0.20, p = 0.56, I (2) = 0 %, n = 164). No effect of peer-delivered interventions for depression was observed on any outcome.

Conclusions: The limited evidence base suggests that peers may have a small additional impact on patient's outcomes, in comparison to standard psychiatric care in high-income settings. Future research should explore the use and applicability of peer-delivered interventions in resource poor settings where standard care is likely to be of lower quality and coverage. The positive findings of equivalence trials demand further research in this area to consolidate the relative value of peer-delivered vs. professional-delivered interventions.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Selection of studies
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Forest plots: high-quality studies for SMI
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
SMI equivalence trials

References

    1. Davidson L, et al. Peer support among persons with severe mental illnesses: a review of evidence and experience. World Psychiatry. 2012;11(2):123–128. doi: 10.1016/j.wpsyc.2012.05.009.
    1. Pitt V, et al. Consumer-providers of care for adult clients of statutory mental health services. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;3:Cd004807.
    1. Simpson EL, House AO. Involving users in the delivery and evaluation of mental health services: systematic review. BMJ. 2002;325(7375):1265. doi: 10.1136/bmj.325.7375.1265.
    1. Dennis CL. Peer support within a health care context: a concept analysis. Int J Nurs Stud. 2003;40(3):321–332. doi: 10.1016/S0020-7489(02)00092-5.
    1. Borkman T. Experiental knowledge: a new concept for the analysis of self-help groups. Social Service Rev. 1976;50:445–456. doi: 10.1086/643401.
    1. Giblin PT. Effective utilisation and evaluation of indigenous health care workers. Public Health Rep. 1989;104:361–368.
    1. Dennis CL. The effect of peer support on postpartum depression: a pilot randomized controlled trial. Can J Psychiatry. 2003;48(2):115–124.
    1. Davidson L, et al. Peer support among adults with serious mental illness: a report from the field. Schizophr Bull. 2006;32(3):443–450. doi: 10.1093/schbul/sbj043.
    1. 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.
    1. Liberati A, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000100. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100.
    1. Higgins JPT, Green S (2011) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions, Version 5.1.0: The Cochrane Collaboration
    1. Review Manager (RevMan) (2012) The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen
    1. Weis R, Speridakos EC (2011) A meta-analysis of hope enhancement strategies in clinical and community settings. Psychol Well-Being Theory Res Pract 1(5). doi:10.1186/2211-1522-1-5
    1. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis in the behavioral sciences. 2. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1988.
    1. De Silva MJ, et al. Effect of psychosocial interventions on social functioning in depression and schizophrenia: meta-analysis. Br J Psychiatry. 2013;202(4):253–260. doi: 10.1192/bjp.bp.112.118018.
    1. Forchuk C, et al. Therapeutic relationships: from psychiatric hospital to community. J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs. 2005;12:556–564. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2850.2005.00873.x.
    1. Gates S (2005) Methodological guidelines, In: T.E.t.P.a.C. Group (ed) About the Cochrane Collaboration (Collaborative Review Groups)
    1. Sterne JAC, Harbord RM. Funnel plots in meta-analysis. Stata J. 2004;4:127–141.
    1. Cook JA, et al. Results of a randomized controlled trial of mental illness self-management using Wellness Recovery Action Planning. Schizophr Bull. 2012;38(4):881–891. doi: 10.1093/schbul/sbr012.
    1. Cook JA, et al. Randomized controlled trial of peer-led recovery education using Building Recovery of Individual Dreams and Goals through Education and Support (BRIDGES) Schizophr Res. 2012;136(1–3):36–42. doi: 10.1016/j.schres.2011.10.016.
    1. Druss BG, et al. The Health and Recovery Peer (HARP) Program: a peer-led intervention to improve medical self-management for persons with serious mental illness. Schizophr Res. 2010;118:264–270. doi: 10.1016/j.schres.2010.01.026.
    1. van Gestel-Timmermans H, et al. Effects of a peer-run course on recovery from serious mental illness: a randomized controlled trial. Psychiatr Serv. 2012;63(1):54–60.
    1. Davidson L, Shahar G, Strayner DA. Supported socialization for people with psychiatric disabilities: lessons from a randomized controlled trial. J Community Psychol. 2004;32(4):453–477. doi: 10.1002/jcop.20013.
    1. Greenfield TK, et al. A randomized trial of a mental health consumer-managed alternative to civil commitment for acute psychiatric crisis. Am J Community Psychol. 2008;42(1–2):135–144. doi: 10.1007/s10464-008-9180-1.
    1. Rivera JJ, Sullivan AM, Valenti SS. Adding consumer-providers to intensive case management: does it improve outcome? Psychiatr Serv. 2007;58(6):802–809. doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.58.6.802.
    1. Sells D, et al. Beyond generic support: incidence and impact of invalidation in peer services for clients with severe mental illness. Psychiatri serv (Washington, D.C.) 2008;59:1322–1327. doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.59.11.1322.
    1. Solomon P, Draine J. One-year outcomes of a randomized trial of consumer case management. Eval Program Plan. 1995;18(2):117–127. doi: 10.1016/0149-7189(95)00003-T.
    1. Ludman EJ, et al. A pilot study of telephone care management and structured disease self-management groups for chronic depression. Psychiatr Serv. 2007;58(8):1065–1072. doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.58.8.1065.
    1. Dennis CL, et al. Effect of peer support on prevention of postnatal depression among high risk women: multisite randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2009;338:a3064. doi: 10.1136/bmj.a3064.
    1. Letourneau N, et al. Effect of home-based peer support on maternal-infant interactions among women with postpartum depression: a randomized, controlled trial. Int J Ment Health Nurs. 2011;20(5):345–357. doi: 10.1111/j.1447-0349.2010.00736.x.
    1. Davidson L, et al. Peer support among individuals with severe mental illness: a review of the evidence. Clin Psychol Sci Pract. 1999;6(2):165–187. doi: 10.1093/clipsy.6.2.165.
    1. Wethington E, Kessler RC. Perceived support, received support, and adjustment to stressful life events. J Health Soc Behav. 1986;27(1):78–89. doi: 10.2307/2136504.
    1. Tripathy P, et al. Effect of a participatory intervention with women’s groups on birth outcomes and maternal depression in Jharkhand and Orissa, India: a cluster-randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2010;375(9721):1182–1192. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)62042-0.
    1. Manandhar DS, et al. Effect of a participatory intervention with women’s groups on birth outcomes in Nepal: cluster-randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2004;364(9438):970–979. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(04)17021-9.
    1. Haider R, et al. Effect of community-based peer counsellors on exclusive breastfeeding practices in Dhaka, Bangladesh: a randomised controlled trial [see comments] Lancet. 2000;356(9242):1643–1647. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(00)03159-7.
    1. Nankundu J, et al. Community based peer counsellors for support of exclusive breastfeeding: experiences from rural Uganda. Int Breastfeed J. 2006;1:19. doi: 10.1186/1746-4358-1-19.
    1. Liu S, et al. Effectiveness of using group visit model to support diabetes patient self-management in rural communities of Shanghai: a randomized controlled trial. BMC Public Health. 2012;12:1043. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-12-1043.
    1. Medley A, et al. Effectiveness of peer education interventions for HIV prevention in developing countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis. AIDS Educ Prev. 2009;21(3):181–206. doi: 10.1521/aeap.2009.21.3.181.
    1. Altman DG, et al. The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med. 2001;134(8):663–694. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-134-8-200104170-00012.
    1. Montgomery P, et al. Developing a Reporting Guideline for Social and Psychological Intervention Trials. Am J Public Health. 2013;103(10):1741–1746. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2013.301447.

Source: PubMed

Patrocinadores y Colaboradores

Condiciones médicas

Intervenciones de drogas

3
Suscribir