The aims of this feasibility trial were to assess the acceptability and feasibility of peer-led recovery groups for people with psychosis in a low-resource South African setting, to assess the feasibility of trial methods, and to determine key parameters in preparation for a definitive trial.

The design was an individually randomised feasibility trial comparing recovery groups in addition to treatment as usual (TAU) with TAU alone. Ninety-two isiXhosa-speaking people with psychosis and forty-seven linked caregivers were recruited from primary care clinics and randomly allocated to trial arms in a 1:1 allocation ratio. TAU comprised anti-psychotic medication delivered in primary care. The intervention arm comprised six recovery groups including service users and caregivers. Two-hour recovery group sessions were delivered weekly in a 2-month auxiliary social worker (ASW)-led phase, then a 3-month peer-led phase. To explore acceptability and feasibility, a mixed methods process evaluation included 25 in-depth interviews and 2 focus group discussions at 5 months with service users, caregivers and implementers, and quantitative data collection including attendance and facilitator competence. To explore potential effectiveness, quantitative outcome data (functioning, relapse, unmet needs, personal recovery, stigma, health service use, medication adherence and caregiver burden) were collected at baseline, 2 months and 5 months post randomisation. Trial registration: PACTR202202482587686.

Qualitative interviews revealed that recovery groups were broadly acceptable with most participants finding groups to be an enjoyable opportunity for social interaction, and joint problem-solving. Peer facilitation was a positive experience; however a minority of participants did not value expertise by lived experience to the same degree as expertise of professional facilitators. Attendance was moderate in the ASW-led phase (participants attended 59% sessions on average) and decreased in the peer-led phase (41% on average). Participants desired a greater focus on productive activities and financial security. Recovery groups appeared to positively impact on relapse. Relapse occurred in 1 (2.2%) of 46 participants in the recovery group arm compared to 8 (17.4%) of 46 participants in the control arm (risk difference -0.15 [95% CI: −0.26; −0.05]). Recovery groups also impacted on the number of days in the last month totally unable to work (mean 1.4 days recovery groups vs 7.7 days control; adjusted mean difference −6.3 [95%CI: −12.2; −0.3]). There were no effects on other outcomes.

Peer-led recovery groups for people with psychosis in South Africa are potentially acceptable, feasible and effective. A larger trial, incorporating amendments such as increased support for peer facilitators, is needed to demonstrate intervention effectiveness definitively.

More knowledge about positive outcomes for people with first-episode psychosis (FEP) is needed. An FEP 10-year follow-up study investigated the rate of personal recovery, emotional wellbeing, and clinical recovery in the total sample and between psychotic bipolar spectrum disorders (BD) and schizophrenia spectrum disorders (SZ); and how these positive outcomes overlap.

FEP participants (n = 128) were re-assessed with structured clinical interviews at 10-year follow-up. Personal recovery was self-rated with the Questionnaire about the Process of Recovery-15-item scale (total score ⩾45). Emotional wellbeing was self-rated with the Life Satisfaction Scale (score ⩾5) and the Temporal Experience of Pleasure Scale (total score ⩾72). Clinical recovery was clinician-rated symptom-remission and adequate functioning (duration minimum 1 year).

In FEP, rates of personal recovery (50.8%), life satisfaction (60.9%), and pleasure (57.5%) were higher than clinical recovery (33.6%). Despite lower rates of clinical recovery in SZ compared to BD, they had equal rates of personal recovery and emotional wellbeing. Personal recovery overlapped more with emotional wellbeing than with clinical recovery (χ2). Each participant was assigned to one of eight possible outcome groups depending on the combination of positive outcomes fulfilled. The eight groups collapsed into three equal-sized main outcome groups: 33.6% clinical recovery with personal recovery and/or emotional wellbeing; 34.4% personal recovery and/or emotional wellbeing only; and 32.0% none.

In FEP, 68% had minimum one positive outcome after 10 years, suggesting a good life with psychosis. This knowledge must be shared to instill hope and underlines that subjective and objective positive outcomes must be assessed and targeted in treatment.

Personal recovery is a persisting concern for people with psychotic disorders. Accordingly, mental health services have adopted frameworks of personal recovery, prioritizing adaptation to psychosis alongside symptom remission. Group acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) for psychosis aims to promote personal recovery alongside improved mood and quality of life.

The objectives of this uncontrolled, prospective pilot study were to determine whether ‘Recovery ACT’ groups for adults are a feasible, acceptable and safe program within public mental health services, and assess effectiveness through measuring changes in personal recovery, wellbeing, and psychological flexibility.

Program feasibility, acceptability and safety indicators were collected from referred consumers (n=105). Adults (n=80) diagnosed with psychotic disorders participated in an evaluation of ‘Recovery ACT’ groups in Australian community public mental health services. Participants completed pre- and post-group measures assessing personal recovery, wellbeing, and psychological flexibility.

Of 101 group enrollees, 78.2% attended at least one group session (n=79); 73.8% attended three or more, suggesting feasibility. Eighty of 91 first-time attendees participated in the evaluation. Based on completer analyses (n=39), participants’ personal recovery and wellbeing increased post-group. Outcome changes correlated with the linear combination of psychological flexibility measures.

‘Recovery ACT’ groups are feasible, acceptable and safe in Australian public mental health services. ‘Recovery ACT’ may improve personal recovery, wellbeing, and psychological flexibility. Uncontrolled study design, completer analyses, and program discontinuation rates limit conclusions.

Perinatal mental health disorders (PMHD) remain often undetected, undiagnosed, and untreated with variable access to perinatal mental health care (PMHC). To guide the design of optimal PMHC (i.e., coproduced with persons with lived experience [PLEs]), this qualitative participatory study explored the experiences, views, and expectations of PLEs, obstetric providers (OP), childcare health providers (CHPs), and mental health providers (MHPs) on PMHC and the care of perinatal depression.

We conducted nine focus groups and 24 individual interviews between December 2020 and May 2022 for a total number of 84 participants (24 PLEs; 30 OPs; 11 CHPs; and 19 MHPs). The PLEs group included women with serious mental illness (SMI) or autistic women who had contact with perinatal health services. We recruited PLEs through social media and a center for psychiatric rehabilitation, and health providers (HPs) through perinatal health networks. We used the inductive six-step process by Braun and Clarke for the thematic analysis.

We found some degree of difference in the identified priorities between PLEs (e.g., personal recovery, person-centered care) and HPs (e.g., common culture, communication between providers, and risk management). Personal recovery in PMHD corresponded to the CHIME framework, that is, connectedness, hope, identity, meaning, and empowerment. Recovery-supporting relations and peer support contributed to personal recovery. Other factors included changes in the socio-cultural conception of the peripartum, challenging stigma (e.g., integrating PMH into standard perinatal healthcare), and service integration.

This analysis generated novel insights into how to improve PMHC for all users including those with SMI or autism.

Despite a significant need, there are currently no rigorously developed empirically based models for what personal recovery from a suicidal episode looks like.

To develop a theoretical model of personal recovery after a suicidal episode, based on a comprehensive literature review and stakeholder feedback.

A scoping review of all empirical studies on this topic was conducted, followed by a thematic analysis to create a preliminary framework. Consultation-based revisions were then made based on feedback from a stakeholder panel to develop the final theoretical model.

The final model comprised seven themes: choosing life, optimising identity, understanding oneself, rediscovering meaning, acceptance, growing connectedness and empowerment (acronym ‘COURAGE’). Although there are some similarities between COURAGE and other models of personal recovery, there are components, such as ‘choosing life’ and ‘understanding oneself’, that are specific to recovery after an acute suicidal episode.

To our knowledge, this is the first study to use a comprehensive literature review with stakeholder feedback to develop a conceptual model of personal recovery after an acute suicidal episode. This model has important implications for both researchers and clinicians to consider. Looking ahead, COURAGE can inform the reconceptualisation of assessment, research and clinical care of individuals who have experienced a suicidal episode.

The benefits of peer support interventions (PSIs) for individuals with mental illness are not well known. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the effectiveness of PSIs for individuals with mental illness for clinical, personal, and functional recovery outcomes.

Searches were conducted in PubMed, Embase, and PsycINFO (December 18, 2020). Included were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing peer-delivered PSIs to control conditions. The quality of records was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias tool. Data were pooled for each outcome, using random-effects models.

After screening 3455 records, 30 RCTs were included in the systematic review and 28 were meta-analyzed (4152 individuals). Compared to control conditions, peer support was associated with small but significant post-test effect sizes for clinical recovery, g = 0.19, 95% CI (0.11–0.27), I2 = 10%, 95% CI (0–44), and personal recovery, g = 0.15, 95% CI (0.04–0.27), I2 = 43%, 95% CI (1–67), but not for functional recovery, g = 0.08, 95% CI (−0.02 to 0.18), I2 = 36%, 95% CI (0–61). Our findings should be considered with caution due to the modest quality of the included studies.

PSIs may be effective for the clinical and personal recovery of mental illness. Effects are modest, though consistent, suggesting potential efficacy for PSI across a wide range of mental disorders and intervention types.

Mental health patients can experience involuntary treatment as disempowering and stigmatising, and contact with recovered peers is cited as important for countering stigma and fostering agency and autonomy integral to recovery.

To advance understanding of the interaction between involuntary treatment and contact with recovered peers, and explore hypothesised relationships to mechanisms of self-evaluation relevant to recovery.

Eighty-nine adults diagnosed with serious mental illness completed items to assess involuntary treatment experience and the extent of prior contact with recovered peers, the Internalised Stigma of Mental Illness Scale, the Self-efficacy for Personal Recovery Scale, the Questionnaire about the Process of Recovery and relevant demographic and clinical scales.

Contact with recovered peers was found to moderate the effects of involuntary treatment on internalised stigma. Sequential conditional process models (i.e. moderated mediation) then demonstrated that conditional internalised stigma (i.e. moderated by contact with recovered peers) mediated the indirect effect of involuntary treatment on recovery-specific self-efficacy, which in turn influenced recovery. Compared with those with low contact with recovered peers, recovery scores were 3.54 points higher for those with high contact.

Although study methods limit causative conclusions, findings are consistent with proposals that contact with recovered peers may be helpful for this patient group, and suggest this may be particularly relevant for those with involuntary treatment experience. Directions for future research, to further clarify measurement and conceptual tensions relating to the study of (dis)empowering experiences in mental health services, are discussed in detail.