PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Cooper, Ruth
AU  - Saunders, Katherine R.K.
AU  - Greenburgh, Anna
AU  - Shah, Prisha
AU  - Appleton, Rebecca
AU  - Machin, Karen
AU  - Jeynes, Tamar
AU  - Barnett, Phoebe
AU  - Allan, Sophie M.
AU  - Griffiths, Jessica
AU  - Stuart, Ruth
AU  - Mitchell, Lizzie
AU  - Chipp, Beverley
AU  - Jeffreys, Stephen
AU  - Lloyd-Evans, Brynmor
AU  - Simpson, Alan
AU  - Johnson, Sonia
TI  - The effectiveness, implementation, and experiences of peer support approaches for mental health: a systematic umbrella review
AID  - 10.1101/2023.10.23.23297394
DP  - 2023 Jan 01
TA  - medRxiv
PG  - 2023.10.23.23297394
4099  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/10/23/2023.10.23.23297394.short
4100  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/10/23/2023.10.23.23297394.full
AB  - Background Peer support for mental health is recommended across international policy guidance and provision and has recently been expanded in countries including the UK. We conducted a systematic umbrella review, summarising the evidence from published reviews of the: 1) effectiveness, 2) implementation, and 3) experiences of paid peer support approaches for mental health.Methods We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, The Campbell Collaboration, and The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (from January 2012-November 2022) for published reviews of paid peer support interventions for mental health. Review quality was assessed using the AMSTAR2. Results were synthesised narratively, with implementation reported in accordance with the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR).Results We included 35 reviews: systematic reviews with (n=13) or without (n=13) meta-analysis, systematic reviews with qualitative synthesis (n=3), and scoping reviews (n=6). The reviews included 426 primary studies and between 95-40,927 participants. Most reviews were low or critically low (97%) quality, one review was high quality. Effectiveness was investigated in 23 reviews. While results were mixed, there was some evidence from meta-analyses that peer support may improve depression symptoms (particularly in perinatal depression), self-efficacy, and recovery. Factors promoting successful implementation, investigated in 9 reviews, included adequate training and supervision, a recovery-oriented workplace, strong leadership, and a supportive and trusting workplace culture with effective collaboration. Barriers to implementation included lack of time, resources and funding, and a lack of recognised PSW certification. Experiences of peer support were explored in 11 reviews, with 3 overarching themes: i) what the peer support role could contribute, including recovery and improved wellbeing for both service users and peer support workers (PSWs); ii) confusion over the PSW role, including role ambiguity and unclear boundaries; and iii) organisational challenges, including low pay for PSWs, negative non-peer staff attitudes, and lack of support and training.Discussion Peer support may be effective at improving some clinical outcomes, self-efficacy, and recovery outcomes for some people. Evidence suggests that certain populations, such as perinatal populations, may especially benefit from peer support. Potential strategies to successfully implement PSWs in healthcare settings include coproduction, with clearly defined PSW roles, a receptive hierarchical structure and staff, strong leadership, and appropriate PSW and staff training with clinical and/or peer supervision alongside safeguarding. Services could also benefit from clear, coproduced, setting specific implementation guidelines for PSW. PSW roles tend to be poorly defined and associations between content of PSW interventions and their impacts needs further investigation. Future research in this area should reflect the priorities of those directly involved in peer support, either as providers or service users.Competing Interest StatementKM is a Director of With-you Consultancy Ltd who provide peer support training and consultancy. All other authors declare no competing interests.Funding StatementThis study is funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Policy Research Programme. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesI confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesAll data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors