Using Community-Based Participatory Research to Conduct a Collaborative Needs Assessment of Mental Health Service Users: Identifying Research Questions and Building Academic-Community Trust.

Attempts to meaningfully engage people with serious mental illnesses (SMI) as allies in conducting research have often failed because researchers tend to decide on the research topic without including community members. Academic researchers can avoid this pitfall by collaborating with community members to conduct a needs assessment to identify relevant research topics and build trust. Here, we report on the results of a psychosocial needs assessment for adult mental health service users in Massachusetts conducted by an academic-peer research team. The project was initiated as part of an academic mental health center's efforts to conduct community-based participatory research (CBPR) with a group of people with SMI. People with SMI were hired and trained to co-lead research projects and the development of the listening group guide, and they conducted 18 listening groups with 159 adults with mental health conditions. The data were transcribed, and rapid analysis employing qualitative and matrix classification methods was used to identify service need themes. Six themes emerged from qualitative analysis: reduce community and provider stigma, improve access to services, focus on the whole person, include peers in recovery care, have respectful and understanding clinicians, and recruit diverse staff. The policy and practice implications of these findings include creating a stronger culture of innovation within provider organizations, developing specific plans for improving recruitment and retention of peer workers and a multicultural workforce, enhancing training and supervision in cultural humility, communicating respectfully with clients, and including peers in quality improvement activities.

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on peer specialists.

OBJECTIVE: Individuals with mental health challenges are at particularly high risk of experiencing negative outcomes (e.g., worsening of mental health, increased risk of mortality) due to the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. Peer specialists may have the benefit of several protective factors, including higher levels of social support and better illness self-management skills that buffer against negative effects of the pandemic. In this study, we compared the differences in the impact of COVID-19 on those trained as peer specialists (e.g., certified peer specialists, recovery coaches) to those not trained in this role. METHOD: Participants with self-reported mental health and/or substance use challenges completed an online survey to collect information on their experiences during COVID-19 (Epidemic-Pandemic Impacts Inventory [EPII]), loneliness (3-item Loneliness Scale), and access to and satisfaction with mental health support. Respondents self-identified as peer specialists or not. RESULTS: One hundred seventy-three U.S. resident participants from 23 states were included in the final analysis: 109 were peer specialists and 64 were nonpeer specialists. Those who were trained as peer specialists reported fewer negative outcomes during the pandemic, including less disruption in employment, less loneliness, and less worsening of mental health, while reporting more positive attitudes in the face of difficulties. Peer specialists were also likely to report more access to and satisfaction with mental health services. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Possibly as a function of their role, peer specialists reported better mental health outcomes during COVID-19, providing key, empirical evidence to support the benefits of helping others. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).