The impact of working as a peer worker in mental health services: a longitudinal mixed methods study.

BACKGROUND: Peer workers are increasingly employed in mental health services to use their own experiences of mental distress in supporting others with similar experiences. While evidence is emerging of the benefits of peer support for people using services, the impact on peer workers is less clear. There is a lack of research that takes a longitudinal approach to exploring impact on both employment outcomes for peer workers, and their experiences of working in the peer worker role. METHODS: In a longitudinal mixed methods study, 32 peer workers providing peer support for discharge from inpatient to community mental health care - as part of a randomised controlled trial - undertook in-depth qualitative interviews conducted by service user researchers, and completed measures of wellbeing, burnout, job satisfaction and multi-disciplinary team working after completing training, and four and 12 months into the role. Questionnaire data were summarised and compared to outcomes for relevant population norms, and changes in outcomes were analysed using paired t-tests. Thematic analysis and interpretive workshops involving service user researchers were used to analysis interview transcripts. A critical interpretive synthesis approach was used to synthesise analyses of both datasets. RESULTS: For the duration of the study, all questionnaire outcomes were comparable with population norms for health professionals or for the general population. There were small-to-medium decreases in wellbeing and aspects of job satisfaction, and increase in burnout after 4 months, but these changes were largely not maintained at 12 months. Peer workers felt valued, empowered and connected in the role, but could find it challenging to adjust to the demands of the job after initial optimism. Supervision and being part of a standalone peer worker team was supportive, although communication with clinical teams could be improved. CONCLUSIONS: Peer workers seem no more likely to experience negative impacts of working than other healthcare professionals but should be well supported as they settle into post, provided with in-work training and support around job insecurity. Research is needed to optimise working arrangements for peer workers alongside clinical teams.

Prevalence and clinical characteristics of serum neuronal cell surface antibodies in first-episode psychosis: a case-control study.

BACKGROUND: Psychosis is a common presenting feature in antibody-mediated encephalitis, for which prompt recognition and treatment usually leads to remission. We aimed to investigate whether people with circumscribed schizophrenia-like illnesses have such antibodies-especially antibodies against the N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor (NMDAR)-more commonly than do healthy controls. METHODS: We recruited patients aged 14-35 years presenting to any of 35 mental health services sites across England with first-episode psychosis, less than 6 weeks of treatment with antipsychotic medication, and a score of 4 or more on at least one selected Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) item. Patients and controls provided venous blood samples. We completed standardised symptom rating scales (PANSS, ACE-III, GAF) at baseline, and tested serum samples for antibodies against NMDAR, LGI1, CASPR2, the GABAA receptor, and the AMPA receptor using live cell-based assays. Treating clinicians assessed outcomes of ICD diagnosis and functioning (GAF) at 6 months. We included healthy controls from the general population, recruited as part of another study in Cambridge, UK. FINDINGS: Between Feb 1, 2013, and Aug 31, 2014, we enrolled 228 patients with first-episode psychosis and 105 healthy controls. 20 (9%) of 228 patients had serum antibodies against one or more of the neuronal cell surface antibodies compared with four (4%) of 105 controls (unadjusted odds ratio 2·4, 95% CI 0·8-7·3). These associations remained non-significant when adjusted for current cigarette smoking, alcohol consumption, and illicit drug use. Seven (3%) patients had NMDAR antibodies compared with no controls (p=0·0204). The other antibodies did not differ between groups. Antibody-positive patients had lower PANSS positive, PANSS total, and catatonia scores than did antibody-negative patients. Patients had comparable scores on other PANSS items, ACE-III, and GAF at baseline, with no difference in outcomes at 6 months. INTERPRETATION: Some patients with first-episode psychosis had antibodies against NMDAR that might be relevant to their illness, but did not differ from patients without NMDAR antibodies in clinical characteristics. Our study suggests that the only way to detect patients with these potentially pathogenic antibodies is to screen all patients with first-episode psychosis at first presentation. FUNDING: Medical Research Council.