4.7 Article

A one-year longitudinal qualitative study of peer support services in a non-Western context: The perspectives of peer support workers, service users, and co-workers

Journal

PSYCHIATRY RESEARCH
Volume 255, Issue -, Pages 27-35

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.psychres.2017.05.007

Keywords

Mental healthcare; Mental health services; Peer supporters; Recovery; Severe mental disorders; Workforce development; Psychiatric rehabilitation

Categories

Funding

  1. Mindset, a philanthropic initiative
  2. Jardine Matheson Group, Hong Kong

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study explored the changing views of key stakeholders (peer support workers, their co-workers, and service users) about peer support services in a non-Western community, using a longitudinal qualitative approach. Five trainee peer support workers (PSWs), 15 service users, and 14 co-workers were interviewed over a 12-month period, under the auspices of the Peer Support Workers Project (also known as the Mindset project) in Hong Kong. A total of 77 interviews were transcribed and thematic analyses were conducted across the participant groups at three different time points (training, work placements, and employment). During the initial implementation of the services, uncertainty about the role of the PSWs were reported. However, trusting and beneficial relationships with service users were gradually built, showing growing resilience and confidence over time. The participants realized that PSWs' experiences of mental illnesses were a unique asset that could help service users to alleviate their own somatic symptoms and improve their connections with others. Our findings highlight that the perceptions of peer support services changed from confusion to viewing PSWs as an asset, to an awareness of the importance of family support, and to the belief that implementing such a program will benefit both service users and PSWs.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available