Results of a pilot randomised controlled trial to measure the clinical and cost effectiveness of peer support in increasing hope and quality of life in mental health patients discharged from hospital in the UK

BMC Psychiatry

Len Bowers⁵  Paul Sherman¹  Richard Evans¹  Cerdic Hall¹  Susan Henry¹  Jody Quigley³  Julie Rowe⁴  Chris Flood²  Alan Simpson² 

[1] East London NHS Foundation Trust, 22 Commercial Street, London E1 6LPUK, UK;School of Health Sciences, City University London, Northampton Square, London EC1V 0HB, UK;School of Psychological Sciences and Health, University of Strathclyde, Graham Hills Building, 40 George Street, Glasgow G1 1QE, UK;KentHealth, Centre for Health Services Studies, University of Kent, Canterbury, Kent CT2 7NF, UK;Institute of Psychiatry, King’s College, London SE5 8AF, UK

关键词: Suicide;    Economic evaluation;    Quality of life;    Loneliness;    Hope;    Discharge;    Mental health;    Peer support;   

Others  :  1123800
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-244X-14-30

 received in 2013-10-03, accepted in 2014-02-03,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

Mental health patients can feel anxious about losing the support of staff and patients when discharged from hospital and often discontinue treatment, experience relapse and readmission to hospital, and sometimes attempt suicide. The benefits of peer support in mental health services have been identified in a number of studies with some suggesting clinical and economic gains in patients being discharged.

Methods

This pilot randomised controlled trial with economic evaluation aimed to explore whether peer support in addition to usual aftercare for patients during the transition from hospital to home would increase hope, reduce loneliness, improve quality of life and show cost effectiveness compared with patients receiving usual aftercare only, with follow-up at one and three-months post-discharge.

Results

A total of 46 service users were recruited to the study; 23 receiving peer support and 23 in the care-as-usual arm. While this pilot trial found no statistically significant benefits for peer support on the primary or secondary outcome measures, there is an indication that hope may be further increased in those in receipt of peer support. The total cost per case for the peer support arm of the study was £2154 compared to £1922 for the control arm. The mean difference between costs was minimal and not statistically significant. However, further analyses demonstrated that peer support has a reasonably high probability of being more cost effective for a modest positive change in the measure of hopelessness. Challenges faced in recruitment and follow-up are explored alongside limitations in the delivery of peer support.

Conclusions

The findings suggest there is merit in conducting further research on peer support in the transition from hospital to home consideration should be applied to the nature of the patient population to whom support is offered; the length and frequency of support provided; and the contact between peer supporters and mental health staff. There is no conclusive evidence to support the cost effectiveness of providing peer support, but neither was it proven a costly intervention to deliver. The findings support an argument for a larger scale trial of peer support as an adjunct to existing services.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN74852771

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Simpson et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

Figure 5.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Qurashi I, Kapur N, Appleby L: A prospective study of non-compliance with medication, suicidal ideation, and suicidal behaviour in recently discharged psychiatric inpatients. Arch Suicide Res 2006, 10(1):61-67.
• [2]Craig TJ, Fennig S, Tanenberg-Karant M, Brome EJ: Rapid versus delayed readmission in first-admission psychosis: quality indicators for managed care? Ann Clin Psychiatry 2000, 12(4):233-238.
• [3]Glover G, Arts G, Suresh Babu K: Crisis resolution/home treatment teams and psychiatric admission rates in England. Br J Psychiatry 2006, 18(9):441-445.
• [4]Meehan J, Kapur N, Hunt I, Turnbull P, Robinson J, Bickley H, Parsons R, Flynn S, Burns J, Amos T, Shaw J, Appleby L: Suicide in mental health in-patients and within 3 months of discharge: national clinical survey. Br J Psychiatry 2006, 188:129-134.
• [5]Bowers L, Whittington R, Nolan P, Parkin D, Curtis S, Bhui K, Hackney D, Allan T, Simpson A: Relationship between service ecology, special observation and self-harm during acute in-patient care: city-128 study. Br J Psychiatry 2008, 193:395-401.
• [6]Solomon P: Peer support/peer provided services: Underlying processes, benefits and critical ingredients. Psychiatr Rehabil J 2004, 27(4):392-401.
• [7]Mead S, Hilton D, Curtis L: Peer support: a theoretical perspective. ychiatr Rehabil J 2001, 25(2):134-141.
• [8]Sabin JE, Daniels N: Strengthening the consumer voice in managed care: VII. The Georgia peer specialist program. Psychiatr Serv 2003, 54(4):497-498.
• [9]McClean J, Biggs H, Whitehead I, Pratt R, Maxwell M: Evaluation Of The Delivering For Mental Health Peer Support Workers Pilot Scheme. Edinburgh: Scottish Government Social Research; 2009.
• [10]Faulkner A, Bassett T: A helping hand: taking peer support into the 21st century. Ment Health Soc Incl 2012, 16(1):41-47.
• [11]Repper J, Carter T: A review of the literature on peer support in mental health services. J Ment Health 2011, 20(4):392-411.
• [12]Sells D, Davidson L, Jewell C, Falzer P, Rowe M: The treatment relationship in peer-based and regular case management for clients with severe mental illness. Psychiatr Serv 2006, 57(8):1179-1184.
• [13]Davidson L, Chinman M, Sells D, Rowe M: Peer support among adults with serious mental illness: a report from the field. Schizophr Bull 2006, 32(3):443-450.
• [14]Ochocka J, Nelson G, Janzen R, Trainor J: A longitudinal study of mental health consumer/survivor initiatives: part 3 – a qualitative study of impacts of participation on new members. J Community Psychol 2006, 34(3):273-283.
• [15]Salzer M, Shear SL: Identifying consumer-provider benefits in evaluations of consumer-delivered services. Psychiatr Rehabil J 2002, 25:281-288.
• [16]Pitt V, et al.: Consumer-providers of care for adult clients of statutory mental health services. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013, 3:CD004807.
• [17]Forchuk C, Jewell J, Schofield R, Sircelj M, Valledor T: From hospital to community: bridging therapeutic relationships. J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs 1998, 5:197-202.
• [18]Forchuk C, Reynolds W, Sharkey S, Martin M-L, Jensen E: Transitional discharge based on therapeutic relationships: state of the art. Arch Psychiatr Nurs 2007, 21(2):80-86.
• [19]Reynolds W, Lauder W, Sharkey S, Maciver S, Veitch T, Cameron D: The effect of transitional discharge model for psychiatric patients. J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs 2004, 11:82-88.
• [20]Lawn S, Smith A, Hunter K: Mental health peer support for hospital avoidance and early discharge: an Australian example of consumer driven and operated service. J Ment Health 2008, 17(5):498-508.
• [21]Beck AT, Steer RA: Manual For The Beck Hopelessness Scale. San Antonio: Psychological Corporation; 1988.
• [22]Greene SM: Levels of measured hopelessness in the general population. Br J Clin Psychol 1981, 20:11-14.
• [23]Dixon WJ, Massey FJ: Introduction to statistical analysis (4th ed). New York: Mcgraw-Hill; 1983.
• [24]O’Brien RG, Muller KE: Applied Analysis of Variance in Behavioral Science. New York: Marcel Dekker; 1983.
• [25]Bowers L, Hackney D, Nijman H, Grange A, Allan T, Simpson A, Hall C, Eyres S: A Longitudinal Study of Conflict and Containment on Acute Psychiatric Wards: Report to the DH Policy Research Programme. London: City University London; 2007.
• [26]Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman D: The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. JAMA 2000, 285:1987-1991.
• [27]Torgerson DJ, Roberts C: Understanding controlled trials. Randomisation methods: concealment. BMJ 1999, 319:375-376.
• [28]McMillan D, Gilbody S, Beresford E, Neilly L: Can we predict suicide and non-fatal self-harm with the beck hopelessness scale? a meta-analysis. Psychol Med 2007, 37(6):769-778.
• [29]Beck AT, Steer RA: Clinical predictors of eventual suicide: a five to ten year prospective study of suicide attempters. J Affect Disord 1989, 17:203-209.
• [30]Holden RR, Fekken C: Test-retest reliability of the hopelessness scale and its items in a university population. J Clin Psychol 1998, 44:40-43.
• [31]Russell D: The UCLA loneliness scale (version 3): reliability, validity, and factor structure. J Pers Assess 1996, 66:20-40.
• [32]Brooks R, EuroQo L: The current state of play. Health Policy 1996, 37(1):53-72.
• [33]Flood C, Mugford M, Stewart S, Harvey I, Poland F, Lloyd-Smith W: Occupational therapy compared with social work assessment for older people. An economic evaluation alongside the CAMELOT randomised controlled trial. Age Ageing 2005, 34:47-52.
• [34]Beecham J, Knapp M: Costing Psychiatric Interventions. In Measuring Mental Health Needs. Edited by Thornicroft . London: Gaskell; 2001:p200-p224.
• [35]Bowers L, Whittington R, Nolan P, Parkin D, Curtis S, Bhui K, Hackney D, Allan T, Simpson A, Flood C: The City 128 Study of Observation and Outcomes on Acute Psychiatric Wards: Report to the NHS SDO Programme. London: City University London; 2006.
• [36]Lancaster GA, Dodd S, Williamson PR: Design and analysis of pilot studies: recommendations for good practice. J Eval Clin Pract 2004, 10(2):307-312.
• [37]Curtis L: Unit Costs of Health and Social Care 2010. Kent University: Personal Social Services Research Unit; 2010.
• [38]Barber JA, Thompson SG: Analysis of cost data in randomized trials: an application of the non-parametric bootstrap. Stat Med 2000, 19(23):3219-3236.
• [39]Briggs AH, O’Brien BJ: The death of cost-minimization analysis? Health Econ 2001, 10(2):179-184.
• [40]Efron B, Tibshirani R: An Introduction To The Bootstrap. New York: Chapman and Hall; 1993.
• [41]Fenwick E, Claxton K, Sculpher M: Representing uncertainty: the role of cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Health Econ 2001, 10(8):779-787.
• [42]Fenwick E, Byford S: A guide to cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Br J Psychiatry 2005, 187:106-108.
• [43]Fenwick E, O’Brien BJ, Briggs A: Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves—facts, fallacies and frequently asked questions. Health Econ 2004, 13:405.
• [44]NHS Careers Website (accessed 2012) http://www.nhscareers.nhs.uk/working-in-the-nhs/pay-and-benefits/agenda-for-change-pay-rates/ webcite
• [45]Festinger DS, Marlowe DB, Dugosh KL, Croft JR, Arabia PL: Higher magnitude cash payments improve research follow-up rates without increasing drug use or perceived coercion. Drug Alcohol Dependency 2008, 96(1–2):128-135.
• [46]Patel MX, Doku V, Tennakoon L: Challenges in recruitment of research participants. Adv Psychiatr Treat 2003, 9:229-238.
• [47]Mental Health Foundation: Exploring Peer Support As An Approach To Supporting Self Management: Feasibility Study Report. http://www.mentalhealth.org.uk/ webcite
• [48]Duquemin A: Peer Support – Options and Effectiveness. NHS Kidney Care. http://www.nhsiq.nhs.uk/ webcite
• [49]Scottish Recovery Network: Experts by Experience: Values Framework for Peer Working. http://www.scottishrecovery.net/ webcite
• [50]Cabinet Office: Reaching Out: An Action Plan on Social Exclusion. London: Cabinet Office; 2006.
• [51]Colson A: Mental Health and Employment in North East London. London: NHS London; 2007.
• [52]Trachtenberg M, Parsonage M, Shepherd G, Boardman J: Peer Support in Mental Health Care: Is it good value for money?. London: Centre of Mental Health; 2013.
• [53]Freiman JA, Chalmers TC, Smith H Jr: The importance of beta, the type II error and sample size in the design and interpretation of the randomized control trial. Survey of 71 ‘negative’ trials. N Engl J Med 1978, 299(13):690-694.
• [54]Raghunathan TE: What do we do with missing data? Some options for analysis of incomplete data. Annu Rev Public Health 2004, 25:99-117.
• [55]Julious SA: Sample size of 12 per group rule of thumb for a pilot study. Pharm Stat 2005, 4(4):287-291.