No abstract

This article explores the contribution of self-help/mutual aid groups to mental well-being. Self-help/mutual aid groups are self-organising groups where people come together to address a shared a health or social issue through mutual support. They are associated with a range of health and social benefits, but remain poorly understood. This article draws on data from stage one of ESTEEM, a project which runs from 2010 to 2013. Stage one ran from 2010 to 2011 and involved participatory, qualitative research carried out in two UK sites. Twenty-one groups were purposively selected to include a range of focal issues, longevity, structures and ethnic backgrounds. Researchers carried out 21 interviews with group coordinators and twenty group discussions with members to explore the groups' purpose, nature and development. Preliminary analysis of the data suggested that mental well-being was a common theme across the groups. Subsequently the data were re-analysed to explore the groups' contribution to mental well-being using a checklist of protective factors for mental well-being as a coding framework. The findings showed that groups made a strong contribution to members' mental well-being by enhancing a sense of control, increasing resilience and facilitating participation. Group members were uplifted by exchanging emotional and practical support; they gained self-esteem, knowledge and confidence, thereby increasing their control over their situation. For some groups, socio-economic factors limited their scope and threatened their future. The article provides an evidence-base which illustrates how self-help/mutual aid groups can enhance mental well-being. If supported within a strategy for social justice, these groups enable people with varied concerns to develop a tailored response to their specific needs. The authors suggest that policy-makers engage with local people, investing in support proportionate to the needs of different populations, enabling them to develop their own self-help/mutual aid groups to enhance their sense of mental well-being.

No abstract

Purpose -Complex collaborative interventions are increasingly applied for stress management but outcomes are inconsistent. "Collaboration" is most highly developed in participatory action research (PAR). Future research might be guided by understanding features integral to successful PAR designs. The purpose of this paper is to present a review of PAR studies which had predominantly positive outcomes, in order to identify features of their designs. Design/methodology/approach -In total, 48 collaborative intervention studies were identified, and filtered according to positive outcomes (improved working environment, job performance, absenteeism, and stress levels), and PAR criteria for stakeholder engagement: 11 studies from six countries were selected for scoping review. Findings -Organization size and sector was not important for PAR, but the extent of uptake of an intervention/change is and a "unit" of up to 100 employees was engaged in most of the studies reviewed. Study aims should not be over-ambitious. Long-term involvement of "change agents" or "action groups" in close communication with a steering group appears most effective in engaging employees over a long period of time, ideally 12 þ months. Self-report scales dominated evaluations (21 different scales; range 1-7 per study) but this strategy is challenged by impacts of organizational change and staff turnover on response rates. Comparison with a non-intervention group appears to strengthen the evaluation, but PAR also provides an opportunity to implement an innovative strategy sensitive to the workplace situation. PAR provides scope to engage managers as participants. The participatory process was least effective where this was unsuccessful.Research limitations/implications -PAR has high potential for the engagement of management, and identification of a rigorous evaluation strategy, that would facilitate the efficacy of collaborative designs. Originality/value -Insights are provided into characteristics of highly collaborative, and demonstrably effective, PAR designs.

This article discusses the labelling and location of self‐organising community groups ‐ ‘self‐help’, ‘peer support’ and ‘service user’. It notes the increasingly close relationship between these groups and statutory authorities, and how this relationship may put the benefits of the groups at risk. Historical, cultural and social factors are discussed to help explain differences and separate developments within African, Caribbean and other Black communities.