Mental Health Peer-Led Cafés—A Complementary Approach to Traditional Crisis Care: A Protocol for a Systematic Scoping Review

Abstract

Introduction: Psychiatric services are gradually becoming more recovery-orientated. With such orientation came the peer movement, a process which began during the civil rights movement of the 1960s and 1970s and has grown exponentially since. In June 2020, the Irish Department of Health released ‘Sharing the Vision’, a policy which envisioned the implementation of crisis cafés as part of mental health service provision. In addition to this, recovery and peer support movements allowed for the timely establishment of peer-led services, thus raising the question: can such crisis cafés as posited in current Irish mental health policy be peer-run? Methods and Analysis: A systematic scoping review is proposed within this paper, the aim of which is to investigate the effectiveness of peer-led cafés on an individual’s recovery journey along with its impact on mental health, safety, and coercion-based outcomes within mental health crisis care. To ensure a transparent and empirically sound approach to the search and reporting of this systematic scoping review, the PRISMA guidelines will be adhered to in this review. Additionally, Arksey and O’Malley’s original framework will be employed to support the adherence to the relevant methodological processes when reporting on this kind of review. Arksey and O’Malley’s original framework presents scoping reviews through a five-step process, which includes stating search terms and searching databases (CINAHL, psycINFO, psycARTICLES, and PubMed) and repositories (Google, Cochrane Online Library, and ETHos), for papers to be included, based on a pre-determined inclusion/exclusion criteria. Discussion: This protocol is the first, to the authors’ knowledge, that reports the qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method evidence into peer-run cafés for mental health crisis management. The use of the PRISMA guidelines and Arksey and O’Malley’s methodological framework enhances the methodological rigour, transparency, reproducibility, and accuracy of this review. The review is limited, as it does not report on study quality or risk of bias. This will not occur in order to maintain its adherence to Arksey and O’Malley’s original framework. The preprint protocol was added to the OSF Registries and is freely available. It will be updated once the paper is published.