Background: Peer support work roles are being implemented internationally, and increasingly in lower-resource settings. However, there is no framework to inform what types of modifications are needed to address local contextual and cultural aspects.Aims: To conduct a systematic review identifying a typology of modifications to peer support work for adults with mental health problems.Method: We systematically reviewed the peer support literature following PRISMA guidelines for systematic reviews (registered on PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews) on 24 July 2018: CRD42018094832). All study designs were eligible and studies were selected according to the stated eligibility criteria and analysed with standardised critical appraisal tools. A narrative synthesis was conducted to identify types of, and rationales for modifications.Results: A total of 15 300 unique studies were identified, from which 39 studies were included with only one from a low-resource setting. Six types of modifications were identified: role expectations; initial training; type of contact; role extension; workplace support for peer support workers; and recruitment. Five rationales for modifications were identified: to provide best possible peer support; to best meet service user needs; to meet organisational needs, to maximise role clarity; and to address socioeconomic issues.Conclusions: Peer support work is modified in both pre-planned and unplanned ways when implemented. Considering each identified modification as a candidate change will lead to a more systematic consideration of whether and how to modify peer support in different settings. Future evaluative research of modifiable versus non-modifiable components of peer support work is needed to understand the modifications needed for implementation among different mental health systems and cultural settings.

The present study aimed to assess: (1) whether a more active involvement of patients is associated with an improvement of clinical symptoms, global functioning, and quality-of-life; and (2) how patients’ satisfaction with clinical decisions can lead to better outcome after 1 year. Data were collected as part of the study ‘Clinical decision-making and outcome in routine care for people with severe mental illness (CEDAR)’, a longitudinal observational study, funded by the European Commission and carried out in six European countries. Patients’ inclusion criteria were: (a) aged between 18 and 60 years; (b) diagnosis of a severe mental illness of any kind according to the Threshold Assessment Grid (TAG) ≥ 5 and duration of illness ≥ 2 years; (c) expected contact with the local mental health service during the 12-month observation period; (d) adequate skills in the language of the host countries; and (e) the ability to provide written informed consent. The clinical decision-making styles of clinicians and the patient satisfaction with decisions were assessed using the Clinical Decision Making Style and the Clinical Decision Making Involvement and Satisfaction scales, respectively. Patients were assessed at baseline and 1 year after the recruitment. The sample consisted of 588 patients with severe mental illness, mainly female, with a mean age of 41.69 (±10.74) and a mean duration of illness of 12.5 (±9.27) years. The majority of patients were diagnosed with psychotic (45.75%) or affective disorders (34.01%). At baseline, a shared CDM style was preferred by 70.6% of clinicians and about 40% of patients indicated a high level of satisfaction with the decision and 31% a medium level of satisfaction. Higher participation in clinical decisions was associated with improved social functioning and quality-of-life, and reduced interpersonal conflicts, sense of loneliness, feelings of inadequacy, and withdrawal in friendships after 1 year (p < 0.05). Moreover, a higher satisfaction with decisions was associated with a better quality-of-life (p < 0.0001), reduced symptom severity (p < 0.0001), and a significantly lower illness burden associated with symptoms of distress (p < 0.0001), interpersonal difficulties (p < 0.0001), and problems in social roles (p < 0.05). Our findings clearly show that a higher involvement in and satisfaction of patients with clinical decision-making was associated with better outcomes. More efforts have to be made to increase the involvement of patients in clinical decision-making in routine care settings.

Objectives Current translation guidelines do not include sufficiently flexible translation approaches for different study materials. We aimed to develop a proportionate methodology to inform translation of all types of study materials in global health trials. Design The design included three stages: (1) categorisation of study materials, (2) integration of existing translation frameworks and (3) methodology implementation (Germany, India, Israel, Tanzania and Uganda) and refinement. Participants The study population comprised 27 mental health service users and 27 mental health workers who were fluent in the local language in stage 7 (pretesting), and 54 bilingual mental health service users, aged 18 years or over, and able to give consent as judged by a clinician for step 9 (psychometric evaluation). Setting The study took place in preparation for the Using Peer Support in Developing Empowering Mental Health Services (UPSIDES) randomised controlled trial (ISRCTN26008944). Primary outcome measure The primary outcome measure was the Social Inclusion Scale (SIS). Results The typology identifies four categories of study materials: local text, study-generated text, secondary measures and primary measure. The UPSIDES Proportionate Translation Methodology comprises ten steps: preparation, forward translation, reconciliation, back translation, review, harmonisation, pretesting, finalisation, psychometric evaluation and dissemination. The translated primary outcome measure for the UPSIDES Trial (SIS) demonstrated adequate content validity (49.3 vs 48.5, p=0.08), convergent validity and internal consistency (0.73), with minimal floor/ceiling effects. Conclusion This methodology can be recommended for translating, cross-culturally adapting and validating all study materials, including standardised measures, in future multisite global trials. The methodology is particularly applicable to multi-national studies involving sites with differing resource levels. The robustness of the psychometric findings is limited by the sample sizes for each site. However, making this limitation explicit is preferable to the typical practice of not reporting adequate details about measure translation and validation. Trail registration number ISRCTN26008944

Using Peer Support in Developing Empowering Mental Health Services (UPSIDES) is evaluating implementation of a peer support worker (PSW) intervention at six recruiting sites (Germany, India, Israel...

This commentary highlights two cross-cultural issues identified from our global mental health (GMH) research, RECOLLECT (Recovery Colleges Characterisation and Testing) 2: self-enhancement and ingroup biases. Self-enhancement is a tendency to maintain and express unrealistically positive self-views. Ingroup biases are differences in one’s evaluation of others belonging to the same social group. These biases are discussed in the context of GMH research using self-report measures across cultures. GMH, a field evolving since its Lancet series introduction in 2007, aims to advance mental health equity and human rights. Despite a 16.5-fold increase in annual GMH studies from 2007 to 2016, cross-cultural understanding remains underdeveloped. We discuss the impact of individualism versus collectivism on self-enhancement and ingroup biases. GMH research using concepts, outcomes, and methods aligned with individualism may give advantages to people and services oriented to individualism. GMH research needs to address these biases arising from cross-cultural differences to achieve its aim.

Background: Stakeholder engagement is essential to the design, implementation and evaluation of complex mental health interventions like peer support. Theory of Change (ToC) is commonly used in global health research to help structure and promote stakeholder engagement throughout the project cycle. Stakeholder insights are especially important in the context of a multi-site trial, in which an intervention may need to be adapted for implementation across very different settings while maintaining fidelity to a core model. This paper describes the development of a ToC for a peer support intervention to be delivered to people with severe mental health conditions in five countries as part of the UPSIDES trial. Methods: One hundred thirty-four stakeholders from diverse backgrounds participated in a total of 17 workshops carried out at six UPSIDES implementing sites across high-, middle- and low-income settings (one site each in India, Israel, Uganda and Tanzania; two sites in Germany). The initial ToC maps created by stakeholders at each site were integrated into a cross-site ToC map, which was then revised to incorporate additional insights from the academic literature and updated iteratively through multiple rounds of feedback provided by the implementers. Results: The final ToC map divides the implementation of the UPSIDES peer support intervention into three main stages: preparation, implementation, and sustainability. The map also identifies three levels of actors involved in peer support: individuals (service users and peer support workers), organisations (and their staff members), and the public. In the UPSIDES trial, the ToC map proved especially helpful in characterising and distinguishing between (a) common features of peer support, (b) shared approaches to implementation and (c) informing adaptations to peer support or implementation to account for contextual differences. Conclusions: UPSIDES is the first project to develop a multi-national ToC for a mental health peer support intervention. Stakeholder engagement in the ToC process helped to improve the cultural and contextual appropriateness of a complex intervention and ensure equivalence across sites for the purposes of a multi-site trial. It may serve as a blueprint for implementing similar interventions with a focus on recovery and social inclusion among people with mental ill-health across diverse settings. Trial registration: ISRCTN26008944 (Registration Date: 30/10/2019).