...
首页> 外文期刊>BMC Psychiatry >A systematic review and meta-analysis of group peer support interventions for people experiencing mental health conditions
【24h】

A systematic review and meta-analysis of group peer support interventions for people experiencing mental health conditions

机译:对体育卫生条件的人群对同行支持干预的系统评价和荟萃分析

获取原文
           

摘要

Peer support is being integrated within mental health services?to further the?development of a recovery approach. However, the most effective models and formats of intervention delivery are unknown. We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the effectiveness of peer support for improving outcomes for people with lived experience of mental health conditions, when delivered as group interventions. Studies reporting randomised controlled trials of group peer support interventions for people experiencing mental health conditions were identified by searching MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Embase and Cochrane CENTRAL, from inception until July 12th 2019 and undertaking supplementary searches. Included studies were assessed for risk of bias and meta-analyses were conducted if three or more trials provided usable data. Eight trials met eligibility criteria, providing data from 2131 participants. Six trials had either high or unclear risk of bias. Interventions were categorised as mutual support groups, or peer support groups, sub-categorised as anti-stigma or self-management interventions. Meta-analyses were only possible for?peer support groups and five outcomes. We found evidence that?group peer support may make small improvements to?overall recovery but not hope or empowerment individually, or to clinical symptoms. Evidence for effectiveness for outcomes which could not be meta-analysed was mixed. Findings from the few eligible trials suggest?group peer support interventions may be specifically?effective for supporting personal recovery and have a limited impact on?other outcomes, though there were some risks of bias to study findings. Interventions were heterogeneous and most social outcomes were absent in the literature, highlighting further limitations to the current evidence-base. There is insufficient evidence available?from trials of group peer support torecommend the routine implementation of these interventions across mainstream mental health services at present. More high-quality trials of peer-developed, group peer support interventions are needed in order tomake firm conclusions about intervention effectiveness.
机译:同行支持正在融合在心理健康服务范围内?进一步发展恢复方法。但是,最有效的模型和介入交付的格式是未知的。我们进行了这一系统审查和荟萃分析,以确定同行支持对患有精神健康状况的患者的成果的效力,何时交付为集团干预措施。通过搜索Medline,Psycinfo,Embase和Cochrane Centron,从2009年7月12日并进行补充搜查,通过搜索Medine还包括评估研究,如果三项或更多的试验提供可用数据,则进行偏差风险和荟萃分析。八项试验符合资格标准,提供2131名参与者的数据。六项试验具有高或不明确的偏见风险。干预措施被分类为相互支持小组,或同行支持小组,分类为抗耻辱或自我管理干预。 Meta-Analyzes仅适用于?同行支持群体和五个结果。我们发现了证据表明?分组同行支持可能会逐步改善?整体恢复,但不单独培养或赋予培养,或临床症状。混合了不能进行荟萃分析的结果的有效性的证据。少数符合条件的试验的调查结果表明?组同行支持干预措施可能具体?有效支持个人恢复,并对其他结果产生有限的影响,尽管研究结果存在一些风险。干预措施是异质的,文学中缺席了大多数社会结果,突出了对当前证据基础的进一步限制。没有足够的证据?从集团同行的试验,支持在目前跨主流心理健康服务的这些干预措施进行常规实施。更高质量的同伴开发的试验,需要组织对等支持干预措施,以便在干预效果的结论中得出结论。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号