Efficacy of a peer-led group program for unemployed people with mental health problems: Pilot randomized controlled trial

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of co-designed, in-person, mental health interventions for reducing anxiety and depression symptoms

BACKGROUND

Co-design is recommended in mental health fields and has been associated with improved intervention efficacy. Despite its growing popularity, syntheses of evidence on the effectiveness of co-designed interventions are scarce, and little is known about their impact on anxiety and depression.

METHODS

The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to consolidate evidence on the effectiveness of in-person, co-designed mental health interventions for reducing anxiety and depression symptoms. An exhaustive search was conducted across six electronic databases (PubMed, PsycINFO, Embase, CINAHL, CENTRAL, and ProQuest) and grey literature. Criteria for inclusion comprised studies utilizing randomized or quasi-randomized methods, implementing non-digital/in-person, co-designed interventions for mental health enhancement, and assessing anxiety and/or depression. Intervention impacts were evaluated using random-effects meta-analyses.

RESULTS

The review identified 20 studies, with only three using the term 'co-design'. Other terminologies included 'co-developed' (n = 2), 'co-produced' (n = 2), and 'CBPR' (n = 11). Seventeen studies exhibited moderate risk of bias, while three demonstrated high risk. Meta-analyses demonstrated a moderate non-significant effect size of 0.5 (95 % CI: -0.8, 1.08; p = 0.08) on depression outcomes, and a small non-significant effect size of 0.12 (95 % CI: -0.1, 0.33; p = 0.23) on anxiety outcomes.

LIMITATIONS

The majority of studies lacked sufficient statistical power to detect between-group differences. Following GRADE criteria, confidence in estimates was low.

CONCLUSIONS

Notwithstanding widespread enthusiasm for co-design, the current evidence base is inadequate to confirm the impact of in-person, co-designed mental health interventions on anxiety and depression. More full-scale evaluation trials of higher quality are urgently needed, along with uniform terminology and measurement.

The Effectiveness of Health-Oriented Interventions and Health Promotion for Unemployed People-A Meta-Analysis

Background: Unemployment is known to have negative effects on mental and physical health. Yet, the effectiveness of interventions aimed at improving the health of unemployed people is unclear. Methods: We conducted a random-effects meta-analysis of extant intervention studies with at least two measurement points and a control group. A literature search in PubMed, Scopus, and PsycINFO in December 2021 identified 34 eligible primary studies with 36 independent samples. Results: For mental health, the average meta-analytic effect sizes for the comparison of the intervention group and the control group were significant and of small size after the intervention, d = 0.22; 95% CI [0.08, 0.36], as well as at follow-up, d = 0.11; 95% CI [0.07, 0.16]. Effects on self-assessed physical health status were small and marginally significant (p = 0.10) after the intervention: d = 0.09; 95% CI [-0.02, 0.20], and insignificant at follow-up. However, when job search training was not part of the intervention program (i.e., all available resources were used solely for health promotion), the average effect size for physical health was significant after the intervention, d = 0.17; 95% CI [0.07, 0.27]. Furthermore, the effects of physical activity promotion were significant and of small-to-medium size after the intervention, leading to increased levels of activity, d = 0.30; 95% CI [0.13, 0.47]. Conclusions: Population-based health promotion programs are recommended because even measures with small effect sizes can actually improve the health of a large group of unemployed people.

What is the volume, diversity and nature of recent, robust evidence for the use of peer support in health and social care? An evidence and gap map

Background

Peer support interventions involve people drawing on shared personal experience to help one another improve their physical or mental health, or reduce social isolation. If effective, they may also lessen the demand on health and social care services, reducing costs. However, the design and delivery of peer support varies greatly, from the targeted problem or need, the setting and mode of delivery, to the number and content of sessions. Robust evidence is essential for policymakers commissioning peer support and practitioners delivering services in health care and community settings. This map draws together evidence on different types of peer support to support the design and delivery of interventions.

Objectives

The aim of this map was to provide an overview of the volume, diversity and nature of recent, high quality evidence on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the use of peer support in health and social care.

Search Methods

We searched MEDLINE, seven further bibliographic databases, and Epistemonikos for systematic reviews (in October 2020), randomised controlled trials (in March 2021) and economic evaluations (in May 2021) on the effectiveness of peer support interventions in health and social care. We also conducted searches of Google Scholar, two trial registers, PROSPERO, and completed citation chasing on included studies.

Selection Criteria

Systematic reviews, randomised controlled trials and economic evaluations were included in the map. Included studies focused on adult populations with a defined health or social care need, were conducted in high-income countries, and published since 2015. Any measure of effectiveness was included, as was any form of peer support providing the peer had shared experience with the participant and a formalised role.

Data Collection and Analysis

Data were extracted on the type of peer support intervention and outcomes assessed in included studies. Standardised tools were used to assess study quality for all studies: assessing the methodological quality of systematic reviews 2 for systematic reviews; Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomised controlled trials; and consensus health economic criteria list for economic evaluations.

Main Results

We included 91 studies: 32 systematic reviews; 52 randomised controlled trials; and 7 economic evaluations. Whilst most included systematic reviews and economic evaluations were assessed to be of low or medium quality, the majority of randomised controlled trials were of higher quality. There were concentrations of evidence relating to different types of peer support, including education, psychological support, self-care/self-management and social support. Populations with long-term health conditions were most commonly studied. The majority of studies measured health-related indicators as outcomes; few studies assessed cost-effectiveness. Studies were unevenly distributed geographically, with most being conducted in the USA. Several gaps were evident regarding the delivery of peer support, particularly the integration of peers and professionals in delivering support and interventions of longer duration.

Authors' Conclusions

Although there is evidence available to inform the commissioning and delivery of peer support in health and social care, there are also clear gaps that need to be addressed to further support provision, particularly regarding cost-effectiveness. The effectiveness of peer support in different countries, with varying health and social care systems, is a priority for future research, as is the integration of peers with professionals in delivering peer support.

Perceptions of Peer Support for Victim-Survivors of Sexual Violence and Abuse: An Exploratory Study With Key Stakeholders

Experiences of sexual violence, childhood sexual abuse, and sexual assault are common across all societies. These experiences damage physical and mental health, coping ability, and relationships with others. Given the breadth and magnitude of impacts, it is imperative that there are effective, accessible services to support victim-survivors, ease suffering, and empower people to cope, recover and thrive. Service provision for this population in the United Kingdom is complex and has been hit substantially by austerity. Since positive social support can buffer against negative impacts, peer support may be an effective approach. The aim of this exploratory study was to capture the views and perspectives of professional stakeholders concerning service provision for victim-survivors, particularly perceptions of peer support.In-depth semistructured interviews were conducted in the UK during 2018 with six professional stakeholders, highly experienced in the field of service provision for victim-survivors of sexual violence and abuse. An abductive approach to analysis was used, applying principles from thematic analysis. Our sample comprised four females and two males, and their roles included psychiatrist, general practitioner, service improvement facilitator, and senior positions within victim-survivor organizations.Interviews highlighted models of peer support for this population, good practice and safety considerations, and a lack of uniformity regarding quality and governance standards across the sector. Findings indicated that current funding models impact negatively on victim-survivor services, and that provision is fragmented and insufficient across statutory and not-for-profit sectors. The influence of the medical model upon service provision was evident, which resulted in apprehension around support delivered in less-usual forms-including peer support. Further research is needed to explore the potential of peer support for victim-survivors of sexual violence and abuse.

Stigma and Peer-Led Interventions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Purpose

The main purpose of our systematic review was to investigate the effect of peer-led intervention on self-stigma in individuals with mental health problems. Secondary purpose was investigating the impact of peer intervention on clinical symptoms, recovery-related outcomes, and disclosure-related outcomes.

Methods

Five electronic databases were searched from 1975 to 2021. Literature databases were searched for randomized controlled trials. From the perspective of key outcomes, a meta-analysis of the effects of peer-led interventions on changing stigma was conducted.

Results

A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials targeting different target groups with mental health problems (e.g., adolescents, college students, family members of mentally ill persons, unemployed persons, etc.) was conducted. It was found that, at the end of the intervention, intervention had a positive effect on main outcomes such as self-stigma and stress from stigma. As for secondary outcomes, there was no significant influence on clinical symptoms. There was a positive effect on rehabilitation and empowerment, but without a statistical significance. There was a statistically significant effect on self-efficacy and professional help seeking. There was a statistically significant effect on confidentiality and disclosure-related distress in the Honest Open Proud (HOP) subgroup. There was no significant influence on confidentiality and withdrawal in the non-HOP subgroup.

Conclusion

Peer-led intervention can reduce self-stigma and stigma pressure and might improve recovery and empowerment. It increases self-efficacy and willingness to seek professional help, but has no significant effect on clinical symptoms and withdrawal. HOP intervention has positive effects on disclosure-related confidentiality and pain.

Systematic Review Registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO, identifier: CRD42021287584.

Shame, self-identification with having a mental illness, and willingness to seek help in northeast Germany

We examined a general population sample (n = 1330) from an epidemiological study (SHIP), investigating whether shame, social distance and reluctance to self-identify as having a mental illness interfere with willingness to seek help for mental health problems. Analyses were stratified for life-time diagnosis of any mental illness. Shame was the strongest negative predictor for willingness to seek help (beta = -0.183, p < .001). Structured Estimation Modelling showed shame being a full mediator of a negative association between social distance and willingness. Our results corroborate the important role of shame as an impediment to help-seeking for mental health problems in the general population.