BackgroundLittle is known about whether peer support improves outcomes for people with severe mental illness.MethodA systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted. Cochrane CENTRAL Register, Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL were searched to July 2013 without restriction by publication status. Randomised trials of non-residential peer support interventions were included. Trial interventions were categorised and analysed separately as: mutual peer support, peer support services, or peer delivered mental health services. Meta-analyses were performed where possible, and studies were assessed for bias and the quality of evidence described.ResultsEighteen trials including 5597 participants were included. These comprised four trials of mutual support programmes, eleven trials of peer support services, and three trials of peer-delivered services. There was substantial variation between trials in participants’ characteristics and programme content. Outcomes were incompletely reported; there was high risk of bias. From small numbers of studies in the analyses it was possible to conduct, there was little or no evidence that peer support was associated with positive effects on hospitalisation, overall symptoms or satisfaction with services. There was some evidence that peer support was associated with positive effects on measures of hope, recovery and empowerment at and beyond the end of the intervention, although this was not consistent within or across different types of peer support.ConclusionsDespite the promotion and uptake of peer support internationally, there is little evidence from current trials about the effects of peer support for people with severe mental illness. Although there are few positive findings, this review has important implications for policy and practice: current evidence does not support recommendations or mandatory requirements from policy makers for mental health services to provide peer support programmes. Further peer support programmes should be implemented within the context of high quality research projects wherever possible. Deficiencies in the conduct and reporting of existing trials exemplify difficulties in the evaluation of complex interventions.

The COVID-19 outbreak may profoundly impact population mental health because of exposure to substantial psychosocial stress. An increase in incident cases of psychosis may be predicted. Clinical advice on the management of psychosis during the outbreak needs to be based on the best available evidence. We undertook a rapid review of the impact of epidemic and pandemics on psychosis. Fourteen papers met inclusion criteria. Included studies reported incident cases of psychosis in people infected with a virus of a range of 0.9% to 4%. Psychosis diagnosis was associated with viral exposure, treatments used to manage the infection, and psychosocial stress. Clinical management of these patients, where adherence with infection control procedures is paramount, was challenging. Increased vigilance for psychosis symptoms in patients with COVID-19 is warranted. How to support adherence to physical distancing requirements and engagement with services in patients with existing psychosis requires careful consideration. Registration details: https://osf.io/29pm4.

BackgroundCrisis resolution teams (CRTs) can provide effective home-based treatment for acute mental health crises, although critical ingredients of the model have not been clearly identified, and implementation has been inconsistent. In order to inform development of a more highly specified CRT model that meets service users’ needs, this study used qualitative methods to investigate stakeholders’ experiences and views of CRTs, and what is important in good quality home-based crisis care.MethodSemi-structured interviews and focus groups were conducted with service users (n = 41), carers (n = 20) and practitioners (CRT staff, managers and referrers; n = 147, 26 focus groups, 9 interviews) in 10 mental health catchment areas in England, and with international CRT developers (n = 11). Data were analysed using thematic analysis.ResultsThree domains salient to views about optimal care were identified. 1. The organisation of CRT care: Providing a rapid initial responses, and frequent home visits from the same staff were seen as central to good care, particularly by service users and carers. Being accessible, reliable, and having some flexibility were also valued. Negative experiences of some referral pathways, and particularly lack of staff continuity were identified as problematic. 2. The content of CRT work: Emotional support was at the centre of service users’ experiences. All stakeholder groups thought CRTs should involve the whole family, and offer a range of interventions. However, carers often feel excluded, and medication is often prioritised over other forms of support. 3. The role of CRTs within the care system: Gate-keeping admissions is seen as a key role for CRTs within the acute care system. Service users and carers report that recovery is quicker compared to in-patient care. Lack of knowledge and misunderstandings about CRTs among referrers are common. Overall, levels of stakeholder agreement about the critical ingredients of good crisis care were high, although aspects of this were not always seen as achievable.ConclusionsStakeholders’ views about optimal CRT care suggest that staff continuity, carer involvement, and emotional and practical support should be prioritised in service improvements and more clearly specified CRT models.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12888-017-1421-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No abstract