情绪提升:一项新的同伴主导的心理健康项目的评估

IF 1 Q4 PSYCHIATRY
Cecilia M. Votta, P. Deldin
{"title":"情绪提升:一项新的同伴主导的心理健康项目的评估","authors":"Cecilia M. Votta, P. Deldin","doi":"10.1108/mhrj-11-2021-0084","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nPurpose\nThe purpose of this paper is to test a mental wellness intervention, Mood Lifters (ML), that addresses significant barriers to mental health care. ML includes adults over 18 struggling with mental wellness or any life difficulties, except those with active suicidality, mania and psychosis, and addresses barriers to care using peer leaders in a manualized group format with a gamified point system.\n\n\nDesign/methodology/approach\nParticipants were recruited using online postings. Those eligible (76% female, 80% white) were randomly assigned to professional-led groups (N = 30), peer-led groups (N = 33) or a waitlist (N = 22; i.e. attended assigned condition if available). Participants completed pre- and postgroup measures (including the Patient Health Questionnaire-9, Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 and Perceived Stress Scale), attended 15 weekly meetings and tracked “points” or at-home skills practice. Multiple imputation was used to account for attrition. Linear regressions were analyzed to determine the program’s impact on anxiety and depressive symptoms and perceived stress. Further analyses included comparisons between peer- and professional-led groups.\n\n\nFindings\nParticipants in ML experienced significant reductions in anxiety symptoms. Completing more homework across the program led to significant reductions in anxiety and perceived stress. Finally, there were no significant differences in attendance, homework completed or outcomes between peer- and professional-led groups.\n\n\nPractical implications\nOverall, participation in the ML program led to reduced anxiety symptoms, and for those who completed more homework, reduced perceived stress. More accessible programs can make a significant impact on symptoms and are critical to address the overburdened care system. Additionally, there were no differences between leader types indicating that peers may be an effective way to address accessibility concerns.\n\n\nOriginality/value\nML is unique for three reasons: it takes a biopsychosocial/Research Domain Criteria approach to mental wellness (i.e. incorporates many areas relevant to mental health, does not focus on a specific diagnosis), overcomes major barriers to mental health care and uses a peer-delivery model. These attributes, taken together with the results of this study, present a care alternative for those with less access.\n","PeriodicalId":45687,"journal":{"name":"Mental Health Review Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Mood Lifters: evaluation of a novel peer-led mental wellness program\",\"authors\":\"Cecilia M. Votta, P. Deldin\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/mhrj-11-2021-0084\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\nPurpose\\nThe purpose of this paper is to test a mental wellness intervention, Mood Lifters (ML), that addresses significant barriers to mental health care. ML includes adults over 18 struggling with mental wellness or any life difficulties, except those with active suicidality, mania and psychosis, and addresses barriers to care using peer leaders in a manualized group format with a gamified point system.\\n\\n\\nDesign/methodology/approach\\nParticipants were recruited using online postings. Those eligible (76% female, 80% white) were randomly assigned to professional-led groups (N = 30), peer-led groups (N = 33) or a waitlist (N = 22; i.e. attended assigned condition if available). Participants completed pre- and postgroup measures (including the Patient Health Questionnaire-9, Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 and Perceived Stress Scale), attended 15 weekly meetings and tracked “points” or at-home skills practice. Multiple imputation was used to account for attrition. Linear regressions were analyzed to determine the program’s impact on anxiety and depressive symptoms and perceived stress. Further analyses included comparisons between peer- and professional-led groups.\\n\\n\\nFindings\\nParticipants in ML experienced significant reductions in anxiety symptoms. Completing more homework across the program led to significant reductions in anxiety and perceived stress. Finally, there were no significant differences in attendance, homework completed or outcomes between peer- and professional-led groups.\\n\\n\\nPractical implications\\nOverall, participation in the ML program led to reduced anxiety symptoms, and for those who completed more homework, reduced perceived stress. More accessible programs can make a significant impact on symptoms and are critical to address the overburdened care system. Additionally, there were no differences between leader types indicating that peers may be an effective way to address accessibility concerns.\\n\\n\\nOriginality/value\\nML is unique for three reasons: it takes a biopsychosocial/Research Domain Criteria approach to mental wellness (i.e. incorporates many areas relevant to mental health, does not focus on a specific diagnosis), overcomes major barriers to mental health care and uses a peer-delivery model. These attributes, taken together with the results of this study, present a care alternative for those with less access.\\n\",\"PeriodicalId\":45687,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Mental Health Review Journal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-05-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Mental Health Review Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/mhrj-11-2021-0084\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHIATRY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Mental Health Review Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/mhrj-11-2021-0084","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

目的:本文的目的是测试一种心理健康干预措施,情绪提升器(ML),它解决了心理健康护理的重大障碍。ML包括18岁以上与心理健康或任何生活困难作斗争的成年人,除了那些有主动自杀倾向、躁狂症和精神病的人,并在一个带有游戏化积分系统的手动小组形式中使用同伴领导来解决护理障碍。设计/方法/方法参与者是通过网上发帖招募的。符合条件的参与者(76%为女性,80%为白人)被随机分配到以专业人士为主导的小组(N = 30)、以同行为主导的小组(N = 33)或等候名单(N = 22;即参加指定条件(如果有的话)。参与者完成了组前和组后测量(包括患者健康问卷-9,广泛性焦虑障碍-7和感知压力量表),参加了15次每周会议,并跟踪了“积分”或在家技能练习。使用多重输入来解释减员。对线性回归进行分析,以确定该计划对焦虑和抑郁症状以及感知压力的影响。进一步的分析包括同龄人和专业人士领导的小组之间的比较。研究结果:ML患者的焦虑症状显著减轻。在整个项目中完成更多的家庭作业可以显著减少焦虑和感知压力。最后,在出勤率、家庭作业完成情况或结果方面,同伴领导组和专业领导组之间没有显著差异。总体而言,参与ML项目减少了焦虑症状,对于那些完成更多作业的人来说,减少了感知压力。更容易获得的规划可对症状产生重大影响,对解决负担过重的护理系统至关重要。此外,领导类型之间没有差异,表明同伴可能是解决可访问性问题的有效方法。独创性/价值eml的独特之处在于三个原因:它采用生物心理社会/研究领域标准方法来处理心理健康(即纳入与心理健康相关的许多领域,而不是侧重于特定的诊断),克服了心理保健的主要障碍,并使用了同行交付模式。这些属性,加上本研究的结果,为那些较少获得护理的人提供了一种替代方案。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Mood Lifters: evaluation of a novel peer-led mental wellness program
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to test a mental wellness intervention, Mood Lifters (ML), that addresses significant barriers to mental health care. ML includes adults over 18 struggling with mental wellness or any life difficulties, except those with active suicidality, mania and psychosis, and addresses barriers to care using peer leaders in a manualized group format with a gamified point system. Design/methodology/approach Participants were recruited using online postings. Those eligible (76% female, 80% white) were randomly assigned to professional-led groups (N = 30), peer-led groups (N = 33) or a waitlist (N = 22; i.e. attended assigned condition if available). Participants completed pre- and postgroup measures (including the Patient Health Questionnaire-9, Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 and Perceived Stress Scale), attended 15 weekly meetings and tracked “points” or at-home skills practice. Multiple imputation was used to account for attrition. Linear regressions were analyzed to determine the program’s impact on anxiety and depressive symptoms and perceived stress. Further analyses included comparisons between peer- and professional-led groups. Findings Participants in ML experienced significant reductions in anxiety symptoms. Completing more homework across the program led to significant reductions in anxiety and perceived stress. Finally, there were no significant differences in attendance, homework completed or outcomes between peer- and professional-led groups. Practical implications Overall, participation in the ML program led to reduced anxiety symptoms, and for those who completed more homework, reduced perceived stress. More accessible programs can make a significant impact on symptoms and are critical to address the overburdened care system. Additionally, there were no differences between leader types indicating that peers may be an effective way to address accessibility concerns. Originality/value ML is unique for three reasons: it takes a biopsychosocial/Research Domain Criteria approach to mental wellness (i.e. incorporates many areas relevant to mental health, does not focus on a specific diagnosis), overcomes major barriers to mental health care and uses a peer-delivery model. These attributes, taken together with the results of this study, present a care alternative for those with less access.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
8.30%
发文量
32
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信