Peer support is based on the belief that people who have faced, endured, and overcome adversity can offer useful support, encouragement, hope, and perhaps mentorship to others facing similar situations. While this belief is well accepted for many conditions, such as addiction, trauma, or cancer, stigma and stereotypes about mental illness have impeded attempts on the part of people in recovery to offer such supports within the mental health system. Beginning in the early 1990s with programs that deployed people with mental illness to provide conventional services such as case management, opportunities for the provision and receipt of peer support within the mental health system have proliferated rapidly across the country as part of the emerging recovery movement. This article defines peer support as a form of mental health care and reviews data from 4 randomized controlled trials, which demonstrated few differences between the outcomes of conventional care when provided by peers versus non-peers. We then consider what, if any, unique contributions can be made by virtue of a person's history of serious mental illness and recovery and review beginning efforts to identify and evaluate these potential valued-added components of care. We conclude by suggesting that peer support is still early in its development as a form of mental health service provision and encourage further exploration and evaluation of this promising, if yet unproven, practice.

The recovery movement, which broadly recognizes the ability of people with mental illnesses to participate in the mainstream of society, stems from a confluence of factors, including longitudinal data showing that many people eventually recover from serious mental illness. Perhaps as important to the emergence and growth of the recovery movement has been the increasing role that people “in recovery” have played in advocating for person-centered care, greater self-determination for those with mental illnesses, and an enhanced focus on restoring functioning for individuals above and beyond symptom reduction. The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 redefined serious forms of mental illness as disabilities, which led to the development of a range of accommodations to enable people with psychiatric disabilities to live in their own homes, work, go to school, and perform other normative adult roles such as parent and parishioner even while suffering symptoms. The Affordable Care Act provides additional levers for expanding the use of peer health navigators and shifting care to a collaborative model in which people can play active roles in their own care. While stigma and discrimination continue to pose formidable obstacles, the foundations have been laid for mental health practice to come closer to resembling health care for other medical conditions.

Purpose: As peer support services have become increasingly used in mental health settings as a recovery-oriented practice, so has the body of published research on this approach to care. The purpose of this paper is to provide an update on the current evidence base for peer support for adults with mental illness in two domains: mental health and recovery, and physical health and wellness. Design/methodology/approach: To provide a robust, non-redundant, and up-to-date review, first the authors searched for meta-analyses and systematic reviews. Second, the authors found individual studies not included in any of the reviews. Findings: Peer services are generally equally effective to services provided by non-peer paraprofessionals on traditional clinical outcomes. Although some studies found peer services to be effective at reducing hospitalization rates and symptom severity, as a whole, the current evidence base is confounded by heterogeneity in programmatic characteristics and methodological shortcomings. On the other hand, the evidence is stronger for peer support services having more of a positive impact on levels of hope, empowerment, and quality of life. Research limitations/implications: In addition to the need for further high-quality research on peer support in mental and physical health domains, the authors also question whether measures of hope, empowerment, and integration into the community are more relevant to recovery than traditional clinical outcomes. Originality/value: This paper provides an original, robust, and up-to-date review of the evidence for peer services.

Peer support within mental health services has a growing evidence base and aligns with current policies of recovery-oriented care. Despite these advantages, widespread implementation of peer support remains limited, likely due to various methodological and implementation issues. Researchers have noted the importance of utilizing an implementation framework to understand best practices for implementation. Therefore, the purpose of the current study was to synthesize the existing literature on the implementation of peer support interventions and identify barriers and facilitators using an implementation framework. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) was used to organize the literature obtained in the systematic search and synthesize best practices for implementation. The systematic search identified 19 published articles that were coded for relevant information including implementation barriers and facilitators. The review highlighted a number of important elements for implementation within the CFIR domains, including clear role definition, a flexible organizational culture, and education for peer and nonpeer staff. Implementation barriers included an organizational culture without a recovery focus, allied practitioners' beliefs about peer support, and an unclear peer role. The results of this review provide a summary of best practices for the implementation of peer support in mental health services that can be used by researchers and service providers in future implementation. These practices should continue to be tested and reworked as the climate of recovery-oriented services within mental health organizations evolves. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

This article describes challenges and successes seen in the first four years of efforts the state of Connecticut has made to reorient its behavioral health system to promoting recovery. Beginning in 2000, the Connecticut initiative was conceptualized as a multi-year, systemic process that involved the following interrelated steps: a) developing core values and principles based on the input of people in recovery; b) establishing a conceptual and policy framework based on this vision; c) building workforce competencies and skills; d) changing programs and service structures; e) aligning fiscal and administrative policies; and, finally, f) monitoring, evaluating, and adjusting these efforts. Following descriptions of the first four steps, the authors offer a few lessons that might benefit other states engaged in similar processes of transformation.