Beyond Generic Support: Incidence and Impact of Invalidation in Peer Services for Clients With Severe Mental Illness

Department of Psychiatry, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT 06513, USA.
Psychiatric services (Washington, D.C.) (Impact Factor: 1.99). 12/2008; 59(11):1322-7. DOI: 10.1176/
Source: PubMed

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.


Available from: Michael Rowe, May 15, 2015
1 Follower
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Homeless women comprise a significant portion of the homeless population and may encounter multiple life stressors including mental illness, substance abuse, and trauma. Women who are homeless may experience difficulty gaining access to resources such as shelter and health care. In addition, the interaction of behavioral health problems with intimate partner violence (IPV) may create extraordinary barriers to their engagement in services. This paper explores the co-occurrence of homelessness, behavioral health problems, and IPV and lessons learned through a gender-specific homeless services program designed to reach women who are unengaged in traditional services. Recommendations for providing gender-responsive services are discussed.
    Community Mental Health Journal 02/2014; 50(7). DOI:10.1007/s10597-014-9712-0 · 1.03 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective: The purpose of the study was to characterize and compare participants' experiences of peer-facilitated versus clinician-facilitated recovery groups for veterans with mental illness. Method: We analyzed qualitative data from 24 interviews with veterans who participated in mental health recovery groups led by peer or clinician facilitators. Results: Subtle differences in group structure, participation/communication and utility/relevance between peer- and clinician-facilitated groups were identified. Participants experienced both peer and clinician facilitators as helpful in promoting recovery, though they appeared to do this in different ways. Conclusions and Implications for Practice: Peer and clinician facilitators offer different strengths in the promotion of mental health recovery. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2014 APA, all rights reserved).
    Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal 03/2014; 37(1):43-50. DOI:10.1037/prj0000048 · 0.75 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To evaluate the effectiveness of peer-delivered interventions in improving clinical and psychosocial outcomes among individuals with severe mental illness (SMI) or depression. 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. 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. 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.
    Social Psychiatry 03/2014; 49(11). DOI:10.1007/s00127-014-0857-5 · 2.58 Impact Factor