Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38637776›Full record

Trial reportBMC health services research2024

Implementation of peer support for people with severe mental health conditions in high-, middle- and low-income-countries: a theory of change approach.

Ramona Hiltensperger, Grace Ryan, Inbar Adler Ben-Dor, Ashleigh Charles, Ellen Epple, Jasmine Kalha, Palak Korde, Yasuhiro Kotera, Richard Mpango, Galia Moran and 7 more

Open access · goldAbstract readClinical TrialMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC health services research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
7.6field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Increasing Youth Peer Workers' Impact Through Integration: Peer Worker Perspectives on Best Practice in Youth Mental Health.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

17 authors at 8 institutions in 7 countries.

Ramona HiltenspergerDepartment of Psychiatry II, Ulm University, Ulm, Germany. ramona.hiltensperger@uni-ulm.de.
Grace RyanCentre for Global Mental Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Inbar Adler Ben-DorDepartment of Social Work, Ben Gurion University of the Negev, Be'er Sheva, Israel.
Ashleigh CharlesSchool of Health Sciences, Institute of Mental Health, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Ellen EppleDepartment of Psychiatry II, Ulm University, Ulm, Germany.
Jasmine KalhaCentre for Mental Health Law and Policy, Indian Law Society, Pune, India.
Palak KordeCentre for Mental Health Law and Policy, Indian Law Society, Pune, India.
Yasuhiro KoteraSchool of Health Sciences, Institute of Mental Health, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Richard MpangoButabika National Referral Hospital, Kampala, Uganda.
Galia MoranDepartment of Social Work, Ben Gurion University of the Negev, Be'er Sheva, Israel.
Annabel Sandra Mueller-StierlinDepartment of Psychiatry II, Ulm University, Ulm, Germany.
Rebecca NixdorfDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Mary RameshDepartment of Health Systems Impact Evaluation and Policy, Ifakara Health Institute, Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania.
Donat ShambaDepartment of Health Systems Impact Evaluation and Policy, Ifakara Health Institute, Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania.
Mike SladeSchool of Health Sciences, Institute of Mental Health, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Bernd Puschner *Department of Psychiatry II, Ulm University, Ulm, Germany.
Juliet Nakku *Butabika National Referral Hospital, Kampala, Uganda.
Universität Ulm · DEUniversity of Nottingham · GBBen-Gurion University of the Negev · ILButabika Hospital · UGIfakara Health Institute · TZIndian Law Institute · INLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GBUniversität Hamburg · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundStakeholder 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.

methodsOne 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.

resultsThe 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.

conclusionsUPSIDES 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 registrationISRCTN26008944 (Registration Date: 30/10/2019).

Indexed as

Mental HealthMental Health ServicesCounselingHumansIndiaUgandaComplex interventionsGlobal mental healthImplementationPeer supportTheory of change

Identifiers

PMID38637776
PMCPMC11027518
OpenAlexW4394917380

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.