Reclaiming user leadership in peer support practice

Abstract

If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information. About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation. AbstractPurpose -The purpose of this paper is to explore user leadership in peer support practice by reviewing existing evidence and models of delivery, investigating the recently developed term of "authentic" peer support and reflecting on challenges and opportunities for the future. Design/methodology/approach -The paper presents and discusses views and evidence on peer support policy and practice, found in the current literature, grass roots peer support experts' presentations and contributions to conferences, a national peer support network, key policy documents and the work of Together for Mental Wellbeing. Findings -Peer support benefits are widely documented as is its history, rooted in user leadership. More recently, peer support is acknowledged in a number of key mental health policy documents as seen to be key in the response to current quality and cost agendas. There has been a simultaneous increase of "formal" peer support as practiced by large service providers and a gradual shift away from its "user led" origins. Against the background of the current economic climate and implications for mental health services, there seems to be a need to pause and reflect on current peer support practice and rethink the way forward. Originality/value -This paper's emphasis on the authenticity of peer support covers new ground in relation to an important topical debate.

The complex terrain of peer support in mental health: What does it all mean?

“…This diversification of peer support has inevitably led to ambiguity among peers and in the organizations which host them, about which type of peer support they are actually participating in and which values/principles of peer support they can honestly say they are enacting. As others before us have advised (Cyr et al., ; Lawton‐Smith, ; Repper, ; Stamou, ), the security of peer support's authenticity and sustainability requires a whole system approach which includes informed educational and training efforts to preserve its values base, the embedding of user leadership to the core of all peer support modalities, the continued understanding and committed support of non‐peer allies and equitable funding to name but a few. It is our opinion however that the success of any such endeavours fundamentally rests with honest appraisal and consensus regarding which modalities of support constitute “authentic” peer support and which modalities must be understood to be sibling concepts.…”

“…Yet in some settings, particularly those wherein peer‐run peer support is absent or limited, peer workers in mental health services is becoming synonymous with peer support. In our view, this is risky terrain, which jeopardizes the integrity of peer support and runs dangerously close to repeating past mistakes of diluting, distorting, or colonizing initiatives developed by persons with lived experience of mental distress (Stamou, ; Stratford et al., ). This is not to say that the support offered by peers in non‐peer settings is in any way “lesser” than that which is operationalized in peer settings.…”

“…Further, as Billsborough et al. () and others (Faulkner & Kalathil, ; Stamou, ) argue, there is significant asymmetry between the amounts of academic research exploring support provided by peers in non‐peer contexts comparable to that conducted in peer‐run contexts. The commensurate invisibility of peer‐run peer support in peer‐reviewed academic research reduces peer‐run organizations competitive advantage when seeking funding and resources and weakens their lobbying capacity to drive knowledge production, direct the future development of peer support and protect its authenticity.…”

“…The commensurate invisibility of peer‐run peer support in peer‐reviewed academic research reduces peer‐run organizations competitive advantage when seeking funding and resources and weakens their lobbying capacity to drive knowledge production, direct the future development of peer support and protect its authenticity. As Stamou (; p.169) states; “It drives user‐led groups to the margins of peer support development and practice with user leadership coming “out of focus” and gradually sliding away from the core of more recent peer support practice”. Equitable representation of diverse peer experiences in the peer support discourse therefore depends on the various enactments of peer support securing sufficient academic attention.…”

“…The rigour and validity of future studies examining peer support will depend on adequate cognizance being given to disentangle the type of peer support under examination and its fidelity to peer support values before claims on outcomes and effectiveness are made. Further, as Billsborough et al (2017) and others (Faulkner & Kalathil, 2012;Stamou, 2014) argue, there is significant asymmetry between the amounts of academic research exploring support provided by peers in non-peer contexts comparable to that conducted in peer-run contexts. The commensurate invisibility of peer-run peer support in peer-reviewed academic research reduces peer-run organizations competitive advantage when seeking funding and resources and weakens their lobbying capacity to drive knowledge production, direct the future development of peer support and protect its authenticity.…”