Search

“As much as possible, all servants are chosen from the category of mental patients. They are at any rate better suited to this demanding work because they are usually more gentle, honest, and humane” — Jean Baptiste Pussin, in a 1793 letter to Philippe Pinel 1. Peer support among persons with severe mental illnesses has been largely considered a recent phenomenon, with the first published account of this presumably “new” form of service delivery dating to 1991 2 and attributed to the mental health service user movement that began in the 1970s 3. As the passage quoted above suggests, however, the idea that persons in recovery may be especially well-suited to helping others suffering from a severe mental illness has a longer, if unacknowledged, history. At the time of his writing the letter from which the above passage was taken, Pussin was serving as the governor (i.e., superintendent) of the Bicêtre Hospital in Paris, where he had himself been a patient. Pinel had been assigned to become the chief physician there, and had asked Pussin to describe how the hospital was functioning prior to his arrival. As noted above, one of Pussin's key management strategies was to hire as many staff for the hospital as possible from among recovered patients. In addition to being “gentle, honest, and humane”, Pinel found these former patients recruited by Pussin to be “averse from active cruelty” (which was a common management strategy in the asylums of the day) and “disposed to kindness” 4 toward the patients in their care. It was then to a significant degree through the hiring and deployment of such staff that Pinel, and Pussin, were able to do away with shackles and abuse, and institute what has since come to be called the “moral treatment” era 5. Recognition of the value of peer support among persons with severe mental illnesses thus goes back centuries, with the practice showing up periodically and with apparently good effect throughout the history of psychiatry. For example, Harry Stack Sullivan used a similar strategy of hiring patients who had recovered from psychotic episodes to staff his inpatient unit in the US in the 1920s 5. Over the last twenty years, the practice of peer support has virtually exploded around the globe, with many more recovering persons being hired to provide peer support than ever before. Estimates place the number of peer support staff currently to be over ten thousand in the US alone 6, and this number continues to rise at an astonishing rate despite the global recession and high unemployment rates. It is thus timely to step back from what has become something of a juggernaut within contemporary mental health policy and practice to review what is known thus far about this particular strategy within the context of community-based practice. This paper will do so by, first, reviewing the existing evidence base and, second, by describing some of the concerns that have emerged as more peers have been hired, along with some of the strategies that have been found useful in addressing and overcoming these concerns. “Yeah, it's nice to know… it's like having someone that you can confide in, you feel like you're kind of in the same boat… She was depressed, homeless, with a drug problem. And that's where I was. And I'm newer to it. She's got a car, she's got her apartment, and I'm building those things, and it's just… you know, somebody who really knows” — Person with severe mental illness describing experiences with a peer provider Much of the research conducted on peer support to date can be conceptualized as falling into one of three categories lying along a linear continuum 7,8. The first stage of research involved feasibility studies, in which the main aim was to demonstrate that it was in fact possible to train and hire persons with histories of severe mental illnesses to serve as mental health staff. Given the history of stigma and discrimination against persons with severe mental illnesses, it was necessary first to show that such people could perform the tasks involved. At this initial stage, the roles for peer staff were conceptualized primarily as ancillary to and supportive of conventional staff as case manager aides or companions; roles for which few specific skills or competencies were required. Four randomized controlled trials conducted during the 1990s demonstrated consistently that peer staff were able to function adequately in these roles and to produce outcomes at least on a par with those produced by non-peer staff 9,10,11,12, with two studies showing slightly better outcomes for those receiving peer support in addition to usual care as compared to those receiving usual care only 9,11. The second stage of research involved studies comparing peer staff and non-peer staff, with both functioning in conventional roles such as case managers, rehabilitation staff, and outreach workers. In these studies of conventional services provided by peers, most studies again found that peer staff functioned at least as well in these roles as non-peer staff, with comparable outcomes 13,14,15,16. Several studies in this second stage of research began to detect consistent differences between these two conditions, however, with peer-delivered services generating superior outcomes in terms of engagement of “difficult-to-reach” clients, reduced rates of hospitalization and days spent as inpatient, and decreased substance use among persons with co-occurring substance use disorders 17,18,19,20. These promising findings led investigators in this area to emphasize the need for the next generation of research to specify and begin to evaluate the ways in which peer staff may perform their roles differently from non-peer staff, based on their first-hand experiences of disability, stigma, and recovery, and whether new roles can be created in the mental health system in which these life experiences can be used most effectively to promote the recovery of others 8,21,22,23,24. In other words, insofar as the second stage of research evaluated the functioning of peers in providing conventional services within conventional roles, these studies stopped short of investigating whether or not peers could perform new functions in new roles that were unique to them because they were derived specifically from their own first-hand experiences of illness, recovery, and service use — experiences that were not shared by non-peer staff. It has thus required a third generation of studies to begin to answer the following questions: a) Do interventions provided by peers differ in any significant way from the same interventions provided by non-peers? b) Are there any interventions that cannot be provided by people who do not have their own first-hand experience of mental illness, which thereby make peer support a unique form of service delivery? c) If so, what are the active ingredients of these aspects of peer support, and what outcomes can they produce? Thus far, the literature has suggested three basic contributions of peer support that would seem to be unique to, or at least especially well-suited for, peer staff. The first is the instillation of hope through positive self-disclosure, demonstrating to the service recipient that it is possible to go from being controlled by the illness to gaining some control over the illness, from being a victim to being the hero of one's own life journey 23,25. The second expands this role modeling function to include self-care of one's illness and exploring new ways of using experiential knowledge, or “street smarts”, in negotiating day-to-day life, not only with the illness but also with having little to no income, with being unstably housed, with overcoming stigma, discrimination, and other trauma, all the while trying to negotiate the complex maze of social and human service systems 23,26. The third aspect of peer support focuses on the nature of the relationship between peer provider and recipient, which is thought to be essential for the first two components to be effective. This relationship is characterized by trust, acceptance, understanding, and the use of empathy; empathy which in this case is paired with “conditional regard” — otherwise described as a peer provider's ability to “read” a client based on having been in the same shoes he or she is in now. Their ability to empathize directly and immediately with their clients can be used in this particular way by peer providers because they may have higher expectations and may place more demands on their clients, knowing that it is possible to recover, but also that it takes hard work to do so (e.g., “I know how hopeless you feel now, but I also know that you can work toward a better life”) 26,27. These expectations may at times lead to conflict, but also are just as likely, if not more so, to lead to encouragement and inspiration 26,27,28,29. While this third stage of peer research — which focuses on any potential unique qualities that alternative peer-provided services may have — is only just getting underway at this time, a couple of recently completed studies are suggestive of what may be in store. For example, our research team completed a study, funded by the National Institute of Mental Health, of culturally-responsive, person-centered care for psychosis among adults of African and/or Hispanic origin in which peer staff played two new roles that were developed specifically for that study. Using the evidence-based practice of illness management and recovery (IMR) as our comparison condition 30, we trained peer staff to provide one of two sets of interventions. The first set involved acting as an advocate to facilitate person-centered care planning for participants to engage them more actively in directing their own treatment and recovery. The second set involved acting as a “community connector” to support participants in pursuing the community activities and roles they had identified in their care plan. A total of 290 adults with serious mental illness were randomly assigned to one of three conditions that built on each other in a graduated way: a) usual care plus the invitation to participate in the evidence-based practice of IMR; b) usual care plus IMR plus a peer-facilitated person-centered planning process (PCP); and c) usual care plus IMR and PCP with the addition of the peer-run community connector program. In this study, we found benefits to both forms of peer support as compared to usual care plus IMR. In particular, the addition of a peer-facilitated person-centered care planning process increased the degree to which participants felt their care was responsive and inclusive of non-treatment issues (such as housing and employment), and increased their sense of control and ability to bring about changes in their lives. The peer-run community connector program increased their sense of hope and degree of engagement in managing their illness, degree of satisfaction with family life, positive feelings about themselves and their lives, social support, and sense of community belonging. Finally, and perhaps most unexpectedly, the peer community integration program decreased participants’ level of psychotic symptoms, while increasing the amount of distress they experienced due to these symptoms. Qualitative data suggested that this increase in distress may have been due to the fact that participants were encouraged to do more with their lives and perceived their remaining symptoms as barriers to pursuing activities that interested them, while in the past these same symptoms, though more prominent, were not viewed in the same way as barriers to a fuller life 31. The second study built on earlier findings, mentioned above, which suggested that peer support might be useful in decreasing rates of hospitalization and days spent in the hospital for persons with histories of multiple hospitalizations. For this study, we trained and deployed peer staff to serve as “recovery mentors” (the name they chose for themselves), a broader role that integrated the interventions of both the PCP advocate and community connector of the earlier study. Feedback from both participants and peer staff in the previous study indicated a strong preference for having both of the functions of advocacy and community integration performed by one person in a continuous manner, rather than requiring the participant to develop trust in two different people. As a result of this feedback, we developed a model of recovery mentoring that absorbs these and other related functions into the role of one peer provider who, most importantly, was trained in how to use his or her own life experiences to the benefit of his or her clients. In addition to the positive uses of self-disclosure, peer staff were trained in developing empathic relationships, using conditional regard, and role modeling self-care. For this study, participants were randomly assigned either to usual care or usual care plus a peer recovery mentor. To be eligible, patients had to have experienced two or more hospitalizations during the 18-month period prior to the current admission and have a documented history of a severe mental illness. Data were collected at baseline (during index hospitalization) and again at 3 and 9-month post-discharge. The main outcomes were the number of hospitalizations and hospital days during the 9-month study period, measured through a combination of medical records, administrative databases, and self-report. We used an intention-to-treat analysis including a total of 74 participants. Primary statistical analyses utilized a univariate analysis of covariance to assess differences between the conditions in inpatient admissions and total number of days in the hospital, both at the end of 9-month participation and controlling for pre-18-month baseline levels. Partial eta squared (?2) served as an estimate of between-condition effect size. For the primary outcome analyses, we tested if the readmission experiences (events and days) reflected statistically significant changes at the end of the study between the conditions (recovery mentors or control) as the between-subjects independent variable. Unlike generalized linear models, linear mixed models — which are commonly employed in community-based research — examine variation within individuals, at the same estimating levels of correlation with other key factors, and are capable of interpolating values for uneven numbers of repeated measurements. We set the significance criterion at p≤0.05, and, in the case of the hospitalization experience, used a one tailed test based on our hypothesis that having a recovery mentor would be associated with less use of the hospital. There were statistically significant main findings for the number of hospitalizations and the number of days spent in the hospital, with participants assigned recovery mentors doing significantly better than those a recovery mentor on both number of admission one and number of hospital days days one In we a of into possible that might the of peer support, and these findings the hypothesis that the of a recovery mentor also had other with previous studies, there was a significant in substance use for people receiving recovery findings, however, a in and in and sense of — all of recovery that are consistent with the model of peer support described above we are pursuing the next step in this of a randomized controlled that for and of and the of peer recovery mentors to peer case managers, on the one and non-peer recovery on the to to the most of peer support (i.e., the third of our three While much work to be in both the nature and of peer support, much work has been and much more is being to bring this practice of the treatment era into the of community-based care. the hiring of peer staff both and significant changes in the of mental health as if not has been about involved in and strategies for overcoming these as about research on We review both the and strategies from our twenty of experience in and peer staff and from the experiences of others involved in this work We begin with the most common asked by staff and in mental health by to We then a of for peer staff to the of the in mental health are for not just for peer staff. As a self-care is an area of for all mental health staff, not just peer staff. It is however, that peer staff are asked to on the of some of their most experiences and these experiences to good use in helping others as well as the of having to all peers (i.e., if they do not do well in the it may in whether or not the will to value peer these are for to people in recovery be considered to have a amount of and as to in back against the illness. is and the peer staff have had to make to the more aspects of the illness, many to about potential or and have for of in their hiring These have such as at least a since last hospital admission or two since using In addition to in terms of their such in hiring would discrimination many As as the person can perform the essential functions of the of his or her history in terms of the use of of functioning is no practice. This is one of the many significant changes that are mental health from an with a mental illness as a to or her as an peer staff including peer staff, time because of illness. staff who are not identified as peers time because of mental health The same expectations for time and for illness be for all including peer staff. or not peer staff can serve as role models in showing the kind of and it takes to come back to work following a In the of may be considered less in comparison to the of and peer staff the administrative demands of the While some people might not have for a period the peer and others might have had many peer staff are if not more at administrative tasks than other staff For those who do with these peer staff can be how to the administrative of their and, provided with to them to do As just one example, for people with or such strategies as into a and having one's may be useful in peer staff to clients by or by the Peer staff, like all other are to to and and and support and peer staff are who are just as as any other staff for client There is no to that this will be any more for peer staff than for In the peer staff have to based on their own experiences as a service it is more that they will their more so than non-peer staff. there is no to that peer staff who have been trained and are will be more than other staff to the If include and then peer staff may be less to engage in this kind of as and by peer staff make rather than Peer support an and useful to existing mental health Peer staff can be especially in people into care and acting as a between clients and other staff. and peer staff can serve rather to the by other lives while other staff to on their The following are some of the strategies that have been found in peer support into conventional mental health A and role — by key program and potential — with and a policy for competencies and non-peer staff and as well as people in recovery, along with and throughout the process of peer including in and hiring and the unique contributions that peers can make to the and where they will For example, the benefits of hiring peers as of case management will not be if the peer staff are only trained and to case management In other words, it is that peers have in which they can use the skills they have through their life experiences and rather than being assigned tasks that other staff are to perform (such as or providing with at least two peer staff within any or work unit to facilitate their to this new role and them the to experiences and provide support to each a on the role of peer staff who can issues that on a — as to — level and who the of peer services a for the for peer staff that the specific skills and tasks required by their roles, such as using their recovery to the benefit of the people they work positive relationships, and what to do in an and how to them, and and ways of in the including how to about issues of and within the for peer staff that on and support rather than on the and which expectations of peer staff that are to the expectations of other and for non-peer staff that and discrimination and for hiring and the of expectations of peer staff, and a toward all and ways of in the including how to about issues of and within the of that hope and in all As suggested by the of strategies above, peer support services in mental health is and work that about significant in these about such has been one of the the of peer support since the however, as we in the case of Pinel and While the need for such may be less — in that people with severe mental illnesses are no in shackles and to and in most — there a need to to such persons their basic human as of their The forms of and discrimination experienced may be but they changes of the same of as those through The from being a service recipient to being a service provider by peer support is one of this of and to the changes in many more ways than by outcomes as by controlled research