Peer-to-peer mental health: a community evaluation case study
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JMHTEP-04-2015-0019 |
| Published date | 02 November 2015 |
| Date | 02 November 2015 |
| Pages | 282-293 |
| Author | Mirika Flegg,Maggie Gordon-Walker,Shona Maguire |
| Subject Matter | Health & social care,Mental health,Mental health education |
Peer-to-peer mental health: a community
evaluation case study
Mirika Flegg, Maggie Gordon-Walker and Shona Maguire
Mirika Flegg is Research Officer
at the School of Health
Sciences, University of
Brighton, Brighton, UK.
Maggie Gordon-Walker is
based at Mothers Uncovered,
Brighton, UK.
Shona Maguire is Consultant
at the Community Works,
Brighton, UK.
Abstract
Purpose –The purpose of this paper is to report the findings of a third-sector community review into peer-to-peer
best practices in mental health service provision in Sussex. This community initiative was funded by the Big Lottery
to explore the benefits of the peer-led approach on individual and public health outcomes and identify avenues for
partnership working.
Design/methodology/approach –A total of 131 participants who had engaged with peer-to-peer services
both as receivers and providers of support were invited to share knowledge and best-practice expertise via a
survey, focus groups and a public consultation day.
Findings –This case study review suggests peer-to-peer support services as an innovative approach to
reducing suicide, self-harm, reliance on public health services (GPs, hospital stays, etc.) and engaging with
drugs, alcohol and criminal activity. In addition to offering a holistic and social approach to mental health,
it further identifies that engagement in peer-to-peer activities potentially provide long-term benefits by
reducing the stigma associated with mental health conditions and treatment. This review highlights the
importance of third-sector groups in providing peer-to-peer mental health support services. It recommends
a network of Peer-to-Peer services to share best practices and improve partnership working.
Originality/value –Conducted by and for people with personal or family experiences with mental health
challenges, this review captures the often inaccessible ideas of a highly marginalised group. It communicates
how they would prefer to work in partnership with academic institutions, public and statutory service to
improve individual and community health outcomes.
Keywords Community partnerships, Mental health, Peer support, Public health, Peer-to-peer, PPI
Paper type Case study
Introduction
The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2014) claims mental health
costs the UK over £70 billion per annum (p. 15). Those with mental health challenges are more
likely to experience physical ailments yet less likely to receive timely diagnoses or have treatments
properly managed (Mutsatsa, 2015). In addition to health and economic disadvantages, those
with severe mental health challenges are less likely to have access to resources through social
connections (Secker, 2009; Webber et al., 2015). Involving those with personal or family
experiences in mental health in providing services for their peers has increasingly been
suggested to improve service and support health outcomes (Repper and Carter, 2011; Ockwell,
2012; Mead et al., 2001).
Formally or informally engaging those with lived experience in service provision can be achieved,
for example via support groups, friendship services, peer mentoring or by organisations that
employ board members or staff with similar experiences to members. “Peer-to-peer”is an
umbrella term to describe the diverse range of practices that provide systems of support where
people with shared experiences can aid each other in wellness.
Received 28 April 2015
Revised 16 June 2015
Accepted 30 June 2015
The project partners wish to thank
the funder Big Lottery and all those
who have given their time, energy
and ideas to this community
review of peer-to-peer support.
PAGE282
j
THE JOURNAL OF MENTALHEALTH TRAINING, EDUCATION AND PRACTICE
j
VOL. 10 NO. 5 2015, pp.282-293, © Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1755-6228 DOI 10.1108/JMHTEP-04-2015-0019
To continue reading
Request your trial