Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorSimpson, Alanen_UK
dc.contributor.authorFlood, Chrisen_UK
dc.contributor.authorRowe, Julieen_UK
dc.contributor.authorQuigley, Jodyen_UK
dc.contributor.authorHenry, Susanen_UK
dc.contributor.authorHall, Cerdicen_UK
dc.contributor.authorEvans, Richarden_UK
dc.contributor.authorSherman, Paulen_UK
dc.contributor.authorBowers, Lenen_UK
dc.description.abstractBackground: Mental health patients can feel anxious about losing the support of staff and patients when discharged from hospital and often discontinue treatment, experience relapse and readmission to hospital, and sometimes attempt suicide. The benefits of peer support in mental health services have been identified in a number of studies with some suggesting clinical and economic gains in patients being discharged. Methods: This pilot randomised controlled trial with economic evaluation aimed to explore whether peer support in addition to usual aftercare for patients during the transition from hospital to home would increase hope, reduce loneliness, improve quality of life and show cost effectiveness compared with patients receiving usual aftercare only, with follow-up at one and three-months post-discharge. Results: A total of 46 service users were recruited to the study; 23 receiving peer support and 23 in the care-as-usual arm. While this pilot trial found no statistically significant benefits for peer support on the primary or secondary outcome measures, there is an indication that hope may be further increased in those in receipt of peer support. The total cost per case for the peer support arm of the study was £2154 compared to £1922 for the control arm. The mean difference between costs was minimal and not statistically significant. However, further analyses demonstrated that peer support has a reasonably high probability of being more cost effective for a modest positive change in the measure of hopelessness. Challenges faced in recruitment and follow-up are explored alongside limitations in the delivery of peer support. Conclusions: The findings suggest there is merit in conducting further research on peer support in the transition from hospital to home consideration should be applied to the nature of the patient population to whom support is offered; the length and frequency of support provided; and the contact between peer supporters and mental health staff. There is no conclusive evidence to support the cost effectiveness of providing peer support, but neither was it proven a costly intervention to deliver. The findings support an argument for a larger scale trial of peer support as an adjunct to existing services.en_UK
dc.publisherBioMed Centralen_UK
dc.relationSimpson A, Flood C, Rowe J, Quigley J, Henry S, Hall C, Evans R, Sherman P & Bowers L (2014) Results of a pilot randomised controlled trial to measure the clinical and cost effectiveness of peer support in increasing hope and quality of life in mental health patients discharged from hospital in the UK. BMC Psychiatry, 14 (1), Art. No.: 30.
dc.rights© 2014 Simpson et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stateden_UK
dc.subjectPeer supporten_UK
dc.subjectMental healthen_UK
dc.subjectQuality of lifeen_UK
dc.subjectEconomic evaluationen_UK
dc.titleResults of a pilot randomised controlled trial to measure the clinical and cost effectiveness of peer support in increasing hope and quality of life in mental health patients discharged from hospital in the UKen_UK
dc.typeJournal Articleen_UK
dc.citation.jtitleBMC Psychiatryen_UK
dc.type.statusVoR - Version of Recorden_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationCity University Londonen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationCity University Londonen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationUniversity of Kenten_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationManagement, Work and Organisationen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationKing's College Londonen_UK
rioxxterms.apcnot requireden_UK
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Reviewen_UK
local.rioxx.authorSimpson, Alan|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorFlood, Chris|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorRowe, Julie|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorQuigley, Jody|0000-0001-8289-3145en_UK
local.rioxx.authorHenry, Susan|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorHall, Cerdic|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorEvans, Richard|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorSherman, Paul|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorBowers, Len|en_UK
local.rioxx.projectInternal Project|University of Stirling|
local.rioxx.filenameSimpson et al_BMC Psychiatry_2014.pdfen_UK
Appears in Collections:Management, Work and Organisation Journal Articles

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
Simpson et al_BMC Psychiatry_2014.pdfFulltext - Published Version745.84 kBAdobe PDFView/Open

This item is protected by original copyright

A file in this item is licensed under a Creative Commons License Creative Commons

Items in the Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

The metadata of the records in the Repository are available under the CC0 public domain dedication: No Rights Reserved

If you believe that any material held in STORRE infringes copyright, please contact providing details and we will remove the Work from public display in STORRE and investigate your claim.