Beyond Generic Support: Incidence and Impact of Invalidation in Peer Services for Clients With Severe Mental Illness
ABSTRACT This study explored experiences of validation and invalidation among clients with severe mental illness in treatment with either peer providers or traditional providers. Associations between six- and 12-month outcomes and validating and invalidating provider communications were also examined.
A total of 137 adults with severe mental illness were randomly assigned to either peer-based or traditional intensive case management. At six and 12 months participants completed self-report questionnaires on their quality of life, obstacles to recovery, and perceived invalidating and validating qualities (positive regard, empathy, and unconditional acceptance) of relationships with their providers.
Mixed analysis of variance showed that communications from and interactions with providers were perceived to be more validating than invalidating by clients in treatment with peer providers than by those in treatment with traditional providers. Regression analyses showed an association at six months, but not at 12 months, between favorable outcomes and the experience of invalidation from peer providers; invalidation from peer providers was linked to improved quality of life and fewer obstacles to recovery, an association that was not found for clients who experienced invalidation from traditional providers.
Peer providers, who reveal their experiences of mental illness to their clients, were perceived to be more validating, and their invalidating communications were linked with favorable short-term outcomes. Both peer and traditional providers sometimes express disapproval of clients' attitudes, values, or behaviors-a form of invalidation. This study found that early in the course of treatment peer providers may be effective in fostering progress by challenging clients' attitudes, values, or behaviors.
Full-textDOI: · Available from: Michael Rowe, May 15, 2015
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The recovery model refers to subjective experiences of optimism, empowerment and interpersonal support, and to a focus on collaborative treatment approaches, finding productive roles for user/consumers, peer support and reducing stigma. The model is influencing service development around the world. This review will assess whether optimism about outcome from serious mental illness and other tenets of the recovery model are borne out by recent research. Remission of symptoms has been precisely defined, but the definition of 'recovery' is a more diffuse concept that includes such factors as being productive and functioning independently. Recent research and a large, earlier body of data suggest that optimism about outcome from schizophrenia is justified. A substantial proportion of people with the illness will recover completely and many more will regain good social functioning. Outcome is better for people in the developing world. Mortality for people with schizophrenia is increasing but is lower in the developing world. Working appears to help people recover from schizophrenia, and recent advances in vocational rehabilitation have been shown to be effective in countries with differing economies and labor markets. A growing body of research supports the concept that empowerment is an important component of the recovery process. Key tenets of the recovery model - optimism about recovery from schizophrenia, the importance of access to employment and the value of empowerment of user/consumers in the recovery process - are supported by the scientific research. Attempts to reduce the internalized stigma of mental illness should enhance the recovery process.Current opinion in psychiatry 06/2009; 22(4):374-80. DOI:10.1097/YCO.0b013e32832c920b
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Peer support is unique in the mental health field because peer specialists provide a role model of recovery to both staff and people in recovery. Peer support as an evidence-based practice is reviewed. A personal recovery story and the experience of working as a certified peer specialist are shared to show the power peer supporters have in transforming the mental health system. Research supporting a more selective role for medication is reviewed along with the role of peer supporters in helping individuals to maximize their own unique medication needs with self-advocacy and negotiation skills. The importance of making choices is explained as a key motivating factor to keep both staff and people in recovery from giving up. Two main science-to-service gaps in real-world schizophrenia treatment are discussed: the lack of available peer support and the need for medication self-determination.Schizophrenia Bulletin 07/2009; 37(3):445-50. DOI:10.1093/schbul/sbp053
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Intensive Case Management (ICM) is a community based package of care, aiming to provide long term care for severely mentally ill people who do not require immediate admission. ICM evolved from two original community models of care, Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) and Case Management (CM), where ICM emphasises the importance of small caseload (less than 20) and high intensity input. To assess the effects of Intensive Case Management (caseload <20) in comparison with non-Intensive Case Management (caseload > 20) and with standard community care in people with severe mental illness. To evaluate whether the effect of ICM on hospitalisation depends on its fidelity to the ACT model and on the setting. For the current update of this review we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (February 2009), which is compiled by systematic searches of major databases, hand searches and conference proceedings. All relevant randomised clinical trials focusing on people with severe mental illness, aged 18 to 65 years and treated in the community-care setting, where Intensive Case Management, non-Intensive Case Management or standard care were compared. Outcomes such as service use, adverse effects, global state, social functioning, mental state, behaviour, quality of life, satisfaction and costs were sought. We extracted data independently. For binary outcomes we calculated relative risk (RR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI), on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous data we estimated mean difference (MD) between groups and its 95% confidence interval (CI). We employed a random-effects model for analyses.We performed a random-effects meta-regression analysis to examine the association of the intervention's fidelity to the ACT model and the rate of hospital use in the setting where the trial was conducted with the treatment effect. We included 38 trials (7328 participants) in this review. The trials provided data for two comparisons: 1. ICM versus standard care, 2. ICM versus non-ICM.1. ICM versus standard care Twenty-four trials provided data on length of hospitalisation, and results favoured Intensive Case Management (n=3595, 24 RCTs, MD -0.86 CI -1.37 to -0.34). There was a high level of heterogeneity, but this significance still remained when the outlier studies were excluded from the analysis (n=3143, 20 RCTs, MD -0.62 CI -1.00 to -0.23). Nine studies found participants in the ICM group were less likely to be lost to psychiatric services (n=1633, 9 RCTs, RR 0.43 CI 0.30 to 0.61, I²=49%, p=0.05).One global state scale did show an Improvement in global state for those receiving ICM, the GAF scale (n=818, 5 RCTs, MD 3.41 CI 1.66 to 5.16). Results for mental state as measured through various rating scales, however, were equivocal, with no compelling evidence that ICM was really any better than standard care in improving mental state. No differences in mortality between ICM and standard care groups occurred, either due to 'all causes' (n=1456, 9 RCTs, RR 0.84 CI 0.48 to 1.47) or to 'suicide' (n=1456, 9 RCTs, RR 0.68 CI 0.31 to 1.51).Social functioning results varied, no differences were found in terms of contact with the legal system and with employment status, whereas significant improvement in accommodation status was found, as was the incidence of not living independently, which was lower in the ICM group (n=1185, 4 RCTs, RR 0.65 CI 0.49 to 0.88).Quality of life data found no significant difference between groups, but data were weak. CSQ scores showed a greater participant satisfaction in the ICM group (n=423, 2 RCTs, MD 3.23 CI 2.31 to 4.14).2. ICM versus non-ICM The included studies failed to show a significant advantage of ICM in reducing the average length of hospitalisation (n=2220, 21 RCTs, MD -0.08 CI -0.37 to 0.21). They did find ICM to be more advantageous than non-ICM in reducing rate of lost to follow-up (n=2195, 9 RCTs, RR 0.72 CI 0.52 to 0.99), although data showed a substantial level of heterogeneity (I²=59%, p=0.01). Overall, no significant differences were found in the effects of ICM compared to non-ICM for broad outcomes such as service use, mortality, social functioning, mental state, behaviour, quality of life, satisfaction and costs.3. Fidelity to ACT Within the meta-regression we found that i. the more ICM is adherent to the ACT model, the better it is at decreasing time in hospital ('organisation fidelity' variable coefficient -0.36 CI -0.66 to -0.07); and ii. the higher the baseline hospital use in the population, the better ICM is at decreasing time in hospital ('baseline hospital use' variable coefficient -0.20 CI -0.32 to -0.10). Combining both these variables within the model, 'organisation fidelity' is no longer significant, but 'baseline hospital use' result is still significantly influencing time in hospital (regression coefficient -0.18 CI -0.29 to -0.07, p=0.0027). ICM was found effective in ameliorating many outcomes relevant to people with severe mental illnesses. Compared to standard care ICM was shown to reduce hospitalisation and increase retention in care. It also globally improved social functioning, although ICM's effect on mental state and quality of life remains unclear. ICM is of value at least to people with severe mental illnesses who are in the sub-group of those with a high level of hospitalisation (about 4 days/month in past 2 years) and the intervention should be performed close to the original model.It is not clear, however, what gain ICM provides on top of a less formal non-ICM approach.We do not think that more trials comparing current ICM with standard care or non-ICM are justified, but currently we know of no review comparing non-ICM with standard care and this should be undertaken.Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) 01/2010; DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD007906.pub2