Evaluating the Prosper peer-led peer support network: a participatory, coproduced evaluation
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/MHSI-12-2015-0045 |
| Pages | 80-91 |
| Published date | 09 May 2016 |
| Date | 09 May 2016 |
| Author | Steve Gillard,Rhiannon Foster,Kati Turner |
| Subject Matter | Health & social care,Mental health,Social inclusion |
Evaluating the Prosper peer-led peer
support network: a participatory,
coproduced evaluation
Steve Gillard, Rhiannon Foster and Kati Turner
Steve Gillard is a Reader, Social
and Community Mental Health,
Rhiannon Foster is a
Researcher, Kati Turner is a
Service User Researcher, all at
Population Health Research
Institute, St George’s, University
of London, London,UK.
Abstract
Purpose –A range of one-to-one, group and online approaches to peer support are increasingly
complementing formal mental health service delivery. Evidence is emerging of the potential benefits and
challenges of peer support for individuals, communities and organisations. There is more limited evidence
describing peer-led peer support networks. The paper aims to discuss these issues.
Design/methodology/approach –In an evaluation of Prosper,a peer-led, peer support network and social
movement, members of the network played a participatory role in the design, conduct and interpretative work
of the evaluation. An online survey, one-to-one interviews and group discussions were used.
Findings –The evaluation describes an evolving network with planning and development meetings
constituting core activity for many members alongside a monthly training programme supporting people to
set up their own activities. There were strong shared values, and consensus that Prosper could strengthen
social networks, improve individual well-being and impact on the way people used mental health services.
Challenges were identified around feelings of uncertainty and vulnerability in relation to involvement in
the network.
Research limitations/implications –The participatory nature of the evaluation adds value to the learning
offered. This was a descriptive evaluation; potential is indicated for the more formal modelling and testing of
peer-led network and social movement initiatives.
Practical implications –Clarity is needed on the relationship of the network to statutory mental health
services –specifically around taking on a “service provider”role –and on the advantages and challenges of a
“hybrid”organisational model that combines traditional, hierarchical and new distributed forms of leadership
and structure.
Social implications –Prosper demonstrated potential to create a sense of common culture based on
sharing lived experience and mutual peer support, providing an alternative to the traditional culture of mental
health services.
Originality/value –This paper offers wider learning derived from evaluation of a highly original initiative in
peer leadership, network structure and interface with statutory mental health services.
Keywords Participatory research, Peer support, Social movements, Knowledge coproduction,
Mental health networks, Service user researchers
Paper type Research paper
A range of approachesto peer support are increasingly findingtheir way into mental health service
delivery in the UK and internationally, including one-to-one (Gillard and Holley, 2014), group
(Castelein etal., 2008) and online forms of peer support (Barak et al.,2008). Evidence is emerging
of a range of potential benefits of peer support. For example, Ochocka et al. (2006) found that
participation in consumer (peer)-led initiatives resulted in improvements in quality of life, social
integration, sense of independence and empowerment for people with severe mental health
problems. Benefits have been indicated for people taking on a formal peer support role too,
The authors would like to
acknowledge the important role
played by the Prosper
co-researchers in undertaking this
evaluation, and to all Prosper
members for giving their time and
valuable insight to this project.
PAG E 80
j
MENTALHEALTH AND SOCIAL INCLUSION
j
VOL. 20 NO. 2 2016, pp. 80-91, © Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 2042-8308 DOI 10.1108/MHSI-12-2015-0045
To continue reading
Request your trial