Online Hearing Voices Peer Support Groups: Assessing Feasibility and Acceptability Within UK National Health Service Settings.

Alison Branitsky, Samantha Bowe, Anthony P Morrison, Eleanor Longden, Sandra Bucci, Lee D Mulligan, Filippo Varese
Author Information
  1. Alison Branitsky: Division of Psychology and Mental Health, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre, The University of Manchester, Manchester, M13 9PL, United Kingdom. ORCID
  2. Samantha Bowe: Psychosis Research Unit, Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, M25 3BL, United Kingdom.
  3. Anthony P Morrison: Division of Psychology and Mental Health, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre, The University of Manchester, Manchester, M13 9PL, United Kingdom. ORCID
  4. Eleanor Longden: Division of Psychology and Mental Health, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre, The University of Manchester, Manchester, M13 9PL, United Kingdom. ORCID
  5. Sandra Bucci: Division of Psychology and Mental Health, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre, The University of Manchester, Manchester, M13 9PL, United Kingdom.
  6. Lee D Mulligan: Division of Psychology and Mental Health, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre, The University of Manchester, Manchester, M13 9PL, United Kingdom.
  7. Filippo Varese: Division of Psychology and Mental Health, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre, The University of Manchester, Manchester, M13 9PL, United Kingdom.

Abstract

Background: User-led hearing voices groups (HVGs) have existed for the past 40 years, but little research has been conducted into if and how this approach can be implemented in statutory mental health settings, and whether they can be delivered effectively when held online. The aim of this study was to conduct a feasibility and acceptability trial of an online HVG for the UK National Health Service (NHS) users who hear voices, to inform a future larger-scale trial.
Methods: A mixed-methods, nonrandomized feasibility study of an online HVG was conducted with 9 participants. Participants attended weekly online meetings for 6 months and completed measures of social connectedness, voice hearing, personal recovery, as well as semi-structured interviews, at baseline and postintervention (26-weeks). Primary outcomes were qualitative and quantitative assessments of feasibility and acceptability.
Results: Thirty-eight participants were referred to the trial, 9 of whom were recruited (100% of the target sample). The trial had high retention (100%) and engagement (mean = 13.2 groups attended). Participants reported positive features of attending this digital intervention, with 85% reporting it was helpful to meet other voice hearers, that the group helped them make sense of voice hearing experiences, that they received positive messages about recovery, and that the group represented a form of support they could not get elsewhere.
Discussion: The findings indicate it is feasible and acceptable to run an online HVG within an NHS setting. A larger trial is needed to further investigate the utility, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness of running online HVGs in the NHS.
Trial Registration: ISRCTN11873550.

Keywords

References

  1. Int J Adv Couns. 2023;45(2):291-309 [PMID: 36466590]
  2. J Ment Health. 2022 Dec;31(6):825-832 [PMID: 34319202]
  3. Front Psychol. 2018 May 15;9:727 [PMID: 29867685]
  4. Qual Health Res. 2024 Nov 16;:10497323241288181 [PMID: 39548877]
  5. Arch Dis Child. 2023 Jun;108(6):421-422 [PMID: 37068922]
  6. Schizophr Bull. 1987;13(2):261-76 [PMID: 3616518]
  7. Community Ment Health J. 2018 Feb;54(2):184-188 [PMID: 28638952]
  8. J Pers Assess. 1996 Feb;66(1):20-40 [PMID: 8576833]
  9. Clin Psychol Psychother. 2024 May-Jun;31(3):e2991 [PMID: 38706173]
  10. Psychol Psychother. 2016 Sep;89(3):324-50 [PMID: 26537838]
  11. Issues Ment Health Nurs. 2023 Apr;44(4):228-244 [PMID: 37075309]
  12. Psychiatry Res. 2003 Nov 1;121(1):31-49 [PMID: 14572622]
  13. Br J Psychiatry. 2000 Sep;177:229-32 [PMID: 11040883]
  14. BMC Psychiatry. 2018 Dec 4;18(1):380 [PMID: 30514268]
  15. JMIR Form Res. 2024 May 3;8:e51694 [PMID: 38701439]
  16. Int J Group Psychother. 2010 Apr;60(2):245-81 [PMID: 20297883]
  17. J Clin Psychol. 2007 Jun;63(6):593-606 [PMID: 17457846]
  18. Schizophr Bull. 2014 Jul;40 Suppl 4:S285-94 [PMID: 24936088]
  19. Interact J Med Res. 2023 Jun 20;12:e43783 [PMID: 37338971]
  20. Psychiatr Q. 2017 Dec;88(4):769-785 [PMID: 28150090]
  21. Schizophr Res. 2020 Jun;220:254-260 [PMID: 32199714]
  22. Psychiatry Res. 2006 Jun 30;143(1):99-108 [PMID: 16725210]
  23. Schizophr Bull. 2022 May 7;48(3):673-683 [PMID: 35089361]
  24. BMJ. 2016 Oct 24;355:i5239 [PMID: 27777223]
  25. Adm Policy Ment Health. 2022 Jul;49(4):596-612 [PMID: 35018509]
  26. Perspect Biol Med. 2013 Winter;56(1):18-35 [PMID: 23748524]
  27. Early Interv Psychiatry. 2015 Apr;9(2):133-40 [PMID: 25775264]
  28. Am J Psychother. 2021 Jun 1;74(2):83-88 [PMID: 33525914]
  29. Perspect Psychiatr Care. 2013 Jan;49(1):58-64 [PMID: 23293998]
  30. Int J Soc Psychiatry. 2024 Feb;70(1):122-131 [PMID: 37724417]
  31. Schizophr Res. 2014 Jun;156(1):30-7 [PMID: 24731619]
  32. N Engl J Med. 2016 Aug 4;375(5):454-63 [PMID: 27518663]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0onlinehearingtrialfeasibilityvoicevoicesstudyHVGNHSsupportgroupsHVGsconductedcanacceptabilityUKNationalHealthService9participantsParticipantsattendedrecovery100%positivegroupBackground:User-ledexistedpast40yearslittleresearchapproachimplementedstatutorymentalhealthsettingswhetherdeliveredeffectivelyheldaimconductusershearinformfuturelarger-scaleMethods:mixed-methodsnonrandomizedweeklymeetings6monthscompletedmeasuressocialconnectednesspersonalwellsemi-structuredinterviewsbaselinepostintervention26-weeksPrimaryoutcomesqualitativequantitativeassessmentsResults:Thirty-eightreferredrecruitedtargetsamplehighretentionengagementmean = 132reportedfeaturesattendingdigitalintervention85%reportinghelpfulmeethearershelpedmakesenseexperiencesreceivedmessagesrepresentedformgetelsewhereDiscussion:findingsindicatefeasibleacceptablerunwithinsettinglargerneededinvestigateutilityefficacycost-effectivenessrunningTrialRegistration:ISRCTN11873550OnlineHearingVoicesPeerSupportGroups:AssessingFeasibilityAcceptabilityWithinSettingsnetworkpeer

Similar Articles

Cited By