The 'Paths to everyday life' (PEER) trial - a qualitative study of mechanisms of change from the perspectives of individuals with mental health difficulties participating in peer support groups led by volunteer peers.

IF 3.4 2区 医学 Q2 PSYCHIATRY BMC Psychiatry Pub Date : 2024-08-13 DOI:10.1186/s12888-024-05992-w
Cecilie Høgh Egmose, Chalotte Heinsvig Poulsen, Siv-Therese Bogevik Bjørkedal, Lene Falgaard Eplov
{"title":"The 'Paths to everyday life' (PEER) trial - a qualitative study of mechanisms of change from the perspectives of individuals with mental health difficulties participating in peer support groups led by volunteer peers.","authors":"Cecilie Høgh Egmose, Chalotte Heinsvig Poulsen, Siv-Therese Bogevik Bjørkedal, Lene Falgaard Eplov","doi":"10.1186/s12888-024-05992-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Worldwide, peers support has been shown to play a crucial role in supporting people with mental illness in their personal recovery process and return to everyday life. Qualitiative studies underpinning the mechanisms of change in peer support has been reviewed. However, the findings are primeraly based on the perspectives of peer support workers employed in mental health services. Thus, qualitiative studies elucidating the mechanisms of change from the recipient perspective in mental health service independent civil society settings are higly needed to further contribute to the evidence of peer support. The 'Paths to every day life' (PEER) is evaluated in a randomized trial and is substantiated by qualitative studies investigating the experiences of PEER from the perspectives of the recipients and the facilitators of peer support. The purpose of this qualitative study underpinned by critical realism was to substantiate the PEER intervention program theory by gaining deeper insight into the change mechanisms and elaborate how, when, and under what circumstances the peer support groups potentially had or did not have an impact on personal recovery from the perspectives of the recipients of peer support.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Eleven individuals were interviewed at the end of the ten-week group course. The semi-structured realist-inspired interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. The analysis was guided by reflective thematic analysis and through an abductive framework based on the program theory. Data were coded and analysed in Nvivo software.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Four overarching themes were identified that informed and nuanced the program theory: 1) Connectedness as a prerequisite for engagement; 2) A sense of hope by working out new paths to recovery; 3) Seeing new sides of oneself; and 4) Sprout for change.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study substantiates the program theory and the quantitative results of the PEER trial by elaborating on mechanisms that were felt to be essential for the personal recovery process from the perspectives of the recipients of the group-based peer support. In addition, the study points out that the opportunities to act in everyday life depended on individual context and where the group participants were on their recovery journey.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04639167.</p>","PeriodicalId":9029,"journal":{"name":"BMC Psychiatry","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11321162/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Psychiatry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-024-05992-w","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Worldwide, peers support has been shown to play a crucial role in supporting people with mental illness in their personal recovery process and return to everyday life. Qualitiative studies underpinning the mechanisms of change in peer support has been reviewed. However, the findings are primeraly based on the perspectives of peer support workers employed in mental health services. Thus, qualitiative studies elucidating the mechanisms of change from the recipient perspective in mental health service independent civil society settings are higly needed to further contribute to the evidence of peer support. The 'Paths to every day life' (PEER) is evaluated in a randomized trial and is substantiated by qualitative studies investigating the experiences of PEER from the perspectives of the recipients and the facilitators of peer support. The purpose of this qualitative study underpinned by critical realism was to substantiate the PEER intervention program theory by gaining deeper insight into the change mechanisms and elaborate how, when, and under what circumstances the peer support groups potentially had or did not have an impact on personal recovery from the perspectives of the recipients of peer support.

Methods: Eleven individuals were interviewed at the end of the ten-week group course. The semi-structured realist-inspired interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. The analysis was guided by reflective thematic analysis and through an abductive framework based on the program theory. Data were coded and analysed in Nvivo software.

Results: Four overarching themes were identified that informed and nuanced the program theory: 1) Connectedness as a prerequisite for engagement; 2) A sense of hope by working out new paths to recovery; 3) Seeing new sides of oneself; and 4) Sprout for change.

Conclusions: This study substantiates the program theory and the quantitative results of the PEER trial by elaborating on mechanisms that were felt to be essential for the personal recovery process from the perspectives of the recipients of the group-based peer support. In addition, the study points out that the opportunities to act in everyday life depended on individual context and where the group participants were on their recovery journey.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04639167.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
通往日常生活之路"(PEER)试验--从参加由同伴志愿者领导的同伴互助小组的心理健康困难者的角度,对改变机制进行定性研究。
背景:在世界范围内,同伴支持已被证明在支持精神疾病患者的个人康复过程和重返日常生活中发挥着至关重要的作用。有关同伴互助中的变化机制的定性研究已经进行了综述。然而,这些研究结果主要是基于受雇于精神健康服务机构的同伴支持工作者的观点。因此,亟需开展定性研究,从独立于民间社会的精神健康服务机构中的受助者角度来阐明改变的机制,从而为同伴支持的实证研究做出进一步贡献。日常生活之路"(PEER)通过随机试验进行评估,并通过定性研究从受助者和同伴支持促进者的角度调查 PEER 的经验。这项以批判现实主义为基础的定性研究旨在通过深入了解改变机制来证实 PEER 干预计划的理论,并从同伴互助接受者的角度阐述同伴互助小组如何、何时以及在何种情况下对个人康复产生或没有产生影响:在为期十周的小组课程结束后,对 11 人进行了访谈。半结构式现实主义启发式访谈进行了录音和逐字记录。分析以反思性主题分析为指导,通过基于项目理论的归纳框架进行。数据由 Nvivo 软件进行编码和分析:结果:确定了四个总体主题,为项目理论提供了信息并使其更加细致:1)作为参与先决条件的联系;2)通过制定新的康复路径获得希望感;3)看到自己新的一面;以及 4)萌芽改变:本研究证实了 PEER 试验的计划理论和定量结果,从小组同伴支持受助者的角度阐述了他们认为对个人康复过程至关重要的机制。此外,研究还指出,在日常生活中采取行动的机会取决于个人情况以及小组参与者在康复之路上所处的位置:试验注册:ClinicalTrials.gov identifier:NCT04639167.
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
BMC Psychiatry
BMC Psychiatry 医学-精神病学
CiteScore
5.90
自引率
4.50%
发文量
716
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Psychiatry is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on all aspects of the prevention, diagnosis and management of psychiatric disorders, as well as related molecular genetics, pathophysiology, and epidemiology.
期刊最新文献
Discharge from secondary care services to primary care for adults with serious mental illness: a scoping review Accepting and committing to caregiving for schizophrenia—a mixed method pilot study Influencing factors of posttraumatic stress disorder in Shidu parents who have lost their only child: a cross-sectional survey Barriers to professional psychological help among pregnant women in China: a qualitative study The association between expressive suppression and anxiety in Chinese left-behind children in middle school: serial mediation roles of psychological resilience and self-esteem
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1