The treatment relationship in peer-based and regular case management for clients with severe mental illness.

Yale Program on Recovery and Community Health, Department of Psychiatry, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06513, USA.
Psychiatric Services (Impact Factor: 1.99). 09/2006; 57(8):1179-84. DOI: 10.1176/
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT This study compared the quality of treatment relationships and engagement in peer-based and regular case management. It also assessed the value of positive relationship qualities in predicting motivation for and use of community-based services for persons with severe mental illness.
One hundred thirty-seven adults with severe mental illness participated in a 2x2 prospective longitudinal randomized clinical trial with two levels of case management intervention (peer and regular) and two interviews (six and 12 months). Self-report questionnaires assessed treatment relationships, motivation, and service use, and providers rated participants' initial engagement and monthly attendance in treatment.
Participants perceived higher positive regard, understanding, and acceptance from peer providers rather than from regular providers at six months only, with initially unengaged clients showing more contacts with case managers in the peer condition and decreasing contacts in the regular condition. Six-month positive regard and understanding positively predicted 12-month treatment motivation for psychiatric, alcohol, and drug use problems and attendance at Alcoholics and Narcotics Anonymous meetings.
Early in treatment, peer providers may possess distinctive skills in communicating positive regard, understanding, and acceptance to clients and a facility for increasing treatment participation among the most disengaged, leading to greater motivation for further treatment and use of peer-based community services. Findings strongly suggest that peer providers serve a valued role in quickly forging therapeutic connections with persons typically considered to be among the most alienated from the health care service system.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Little is known about whether peer support improves outcomes for people with severe mental illness. A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted. Cochrane CENTRAL Register, Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL were searched to July 2013 without restriction by publication status. Randomised trials of non-residential peer support interventions were included. Trial interventions were categorised and analysed separately as: mutual peer support, peer support services, or peer delivered mental health services. Meta-analyses were performed where possible, and studies were assessed for bias and the quality of evidence described. Eighteen trials including 5597 participants were included. These comprised four trials of mutual support programmes, eleven trials of peer support services, and three trials of peer-delivered services. There was substantial variation between trials in participants' characteristics and programme content. Outcomes were incompletely reported; there was high risk of bias. From small numbers of studies in the analyses it was possible to conduct, there was little or no evidence that peer support was associated with positive effects on hospitalisation, overall symptoms or satisfaction with services. There was some evidence that peer support was associated with positive effects on measures of hope, recovery and empowerment at and beyond the end of the intervention, although this was not consistent within or across different types of peer support. Despite the promotion and uptake of peer support internationally, there is little evidence from current trials about the effects of peer support for people with severe mental illness. Although there are few positive findings, this review has important implications for policy and practice: current evidence does not support recommendations or mandatory requirements from policy makers for mental health services to provide peer support programmes. Further peer support programmes should be implemented within the context of high quality research projects wherever possible. Deficiencies in the conduct and reporting of existing trials exemplify difficulties in the evaluation of complex interventions.
    BMC Psychiatry 02/2014; 14(1):39. · 2.24 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Humanistic approaches to counseling are particularly concerned with process, emphasizing the person of the client, the person of the counselor, and the therapeutic relationship. Process and outcomes in humanistic interventions are highly related and complementary aspects of counseling. Counseling outcomes may include client outcomes as well as research outcomes. Whereas client outcomes are focused on the specific needs of clients, research outcomes tend to focus on generalizable results. When considering process, outcomes, or research, the humanistic counselor seeks to integrate the principles of humanism into all aspects of practice.
    The Journal of Humanistic Counseling. 10/2014; 53(3).
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Mental health patients can feel anxious about losing the support of staff and patients when discharged from hospital and often discontinue treatment, experience relapse and readmission to hospital, and sometimes attempt suicide. The benefits of peer support in mental health services have been identified in a number of studies with some suggesting clinical and economic gains in patients being discharged. This pilot randomised controlled trial with economic evaluation aimed to explore whether peer support in addition to usual aftercare for patients during the transition from hospital to home would increase hope, reduce loneliness, improve quality of life and show cost effectiveness compared with patients receiving usual aftercare only, with follow-up at one and three-months post-discharge. A total of 46 service users were recruited to the study; 23 receiving peer support and 23 in the care-as-usual arm. While this pilot trial found no statistically significant benefits for peer support on the primary or secondary outcome measures, there is an indication that hope may be further increased in those in receipt of peer support. The total cost per case for the peer support arm of the study was [pound sign]2154 compared to [pound sign]1922 for the control arm. The mean difference between costs was minimal and not statistically significant. However, further analyses demonstrated that peer support has a reasonably high probability of being more cost effective for a modest positive change in the measure of hopelessness. Challenges faced in recruitment and follow-up are explored alongside limitations in the delivery of peer support. The findings suggest there is merit in conducting further research on peer support in the transition from hospital to home consideration should be applied to the nature of the patient population to whom support is offered; the length and frequency of support provided; and the contact between peer supporters and mental health staff. There is no conclusive evidence to support the cost effectiveness of providing peer support, but neither was it proven a costly intervention to deliver. The findings support an argument for a larger scale trial of peer support as an adjunct to existing services.Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN74852771.
    BMC Psychiatry 02/2014; 14(1):30. · 2.24 Impact Factor