BackgroundIn recent years the use of peer specialists in the delivery of mental health of care across the US has increased. Although data on the benefits of using peer specialists is limited and/or equivocal, states are making policy and funding decisions to support the expansion of peer specialist services. This data is even more limited in the state of Florida where no studies were found to document the effect of peer specialists on mental health care outcomes. The purpose of this study was to assess whether local decisions to use peer specialists can be supported through the measurement of outcomes of service utilization and mental health functioning when peer specialists are involved in the treatment of individuals living with serious mental illness.MethodsThe study was conducted using service data collected by South Florida Behavioral Health Network (SFBHN). SFBHN is the Managing Entity for publicly funded mental health and substance abuse services in Miami-Dade and Monroe Counties in Florida. We compared mental health outcomes and service utilization between individuals who received peer specialist services (n = 367) and a treatment as usual group (n = 1468) matched on gender, age and severity of diagnosis in the period July 2013 and June 2015. Multilevel models were used to evaluate the functioning outcomes between the groups. Service utilization was assessed using negative binomial regression.ResultsIndividuals in the treatment group receiving peer specialist services utilized more ambulatory/lower levels of care services and had more frequent crisis stabilization unit admissions. Those in the treatment group also displayed more functional difficulties with a variety of practical activities, employment and housing and violent temper, hostility, threatening behaviors.ConclusionsThe findings of the study further support existing evidence documenting the mixed benefits of using peer services compared to treatment as usual care. Policy makers and other stakeholders are encouraged to advance mental health recovery by examining outcomes more comprehensively. Future research should include examination of the subjective benefits of peer support for recipients, understanding the impact on service utilization and a better definition of the roles, supervision and expectations of peer support programs.

No abstract

Cervical cancer disproportionately affects minorities, immigrants and low-income women in the USA, with disparities greatest among Latino immigrants. We examined barriers and facilitators to cervical cancer screening practices among a group of immigrant Latino women in Florida, USA. Between January and May 2013, six focus group discussions, involving 35 participants, were conducted among Hispanic women in Miami to explore their knowledge, beliefs about cervical cancer and facilitators and barriers to cervical cancer screening using a theoretical framework. The data showed that family support, especially from female relatives, was an important facilitator of screening and treatment. Women, however, reported prioritising family health over their own, and some expressed fatalistic beliefs about cancer. Major obstacles to receiving a Pap smear included fear that it might result in removal of the uterus, discomfort about being seen by a male doctor and concern that testing might stigmatise them as being sexually promiscuous or having a sexually transmitted disease. Targeted education on cancer and prevention is critically needed in this population. Efforts should focus on women of all ages since younger women often turn to older female relatives for advice.