↓ Skip to main content

Development of a peer-supported, self-management intervention for people following mental health crisis

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Research Notes, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (81st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
15 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
96 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Development of a peer-supported, self-management intervention for people following mental health crisis
Published in
BMC Research Notes, November 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13104-017-2900-6
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

A documented gap in support exists for service users following discharge from acute mental health services, and structured interventions to reduce relapse are rarely provided. Peer-facilitated self-management interventions have potential to meet this need, but evidence for their effectiveness is limited. This paper describes the development of a peer-provided self-management intervention for mental health service users following discharge from crisis resolution teams (CRTs). A five-stage iterative mixed-methods approach of sequential data collection and intervention development was adopted, following the development and piloting stages of the MRC framework for developing and evaluating complex interventions. Evidence review (stage 1) included systematic reviews of both peer support and self-management literature. Interviews with CRT service users (n = 41) regarding needs and priorities for support following CRT discharge were conducted (stage 2). Focus group consultations (n = 12) were held with CRT service-users, staff and carers to assess the acceptability and feasibility of a proposed intervention, and to refine intervention organisation and content (stage 3). Qualitative evaluation of a refined, peer-provided, self-management intervention involved qualitative interviews with CRT service user participants (n = 9; n = 18) in feasibility testing (stage 4) and a pilot trial (stage 5), and a focus group at each stage with the peer worker providers (n = 4). Existing evidence suggests self-management interventions can reduce relapse and improve recovery. Initial interviews and focus groups indicated support for the overall purpose and planned content of a recovery-focused self-management intervention for people leaving CRT care adapted from an existing resource: The personal recovery plan (developed by Repper and Perkins), and for peer support workers (PSWs) as providers. Participant feedback after feasibility testing was positive regarding facilitation of the intervention by PSWs; however, the structured self-management booklet was underutilised. Modifications to the self-management intervention manual and PSWs' training were made before piloting, which confirmed the acceptability and feasibility of the intervention for testing in a future, definitive trial. A manualised intervention and operating procedures, focusing on the needs and priorities of the target client group, have been developed through iterative stages of intervention development and feedback for testing in a trial context. Trial Registration ISRCTN01027104 date of registration: 11/10/2012.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 96 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 96 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 18%
Researcher 13 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 9%
Student > Master 9 9%
Student > Bachelor 6 6%
Other 11 11%
Unknown 31 32%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 19 20%
Psychology 14 15%
Social Sciences 10 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 8%
Engineering 4 4%
Other 4 4%
Unknown 37 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 August 2018.
All research outputs
#4,723,100
of 32,867,376 outputs
Outputs from BMC Research Notes
#605
of 4,960 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#66,730
of 366,542 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Research Notes
#19
of 160 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 32,867,376 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,960 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 366,542 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 160 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.