Peer-delivered wellness recovery services: from evidence to widespread implementation.

Reviewing the evidence for peer-delivered services, writing in 2004 in this journal, researcher Phyllis Solomon commented on the “high level of evidence” for peer-provided services, including four randomized studies and three quasi-experimental design studies using a variety of meaningful outcome measures (Solomon, 2004). The past two decades have witnessed a number of important studies of these models and services that meet these evidence criteria. For example, Paulson and his colleagues randomly assigned community mental health center clients to a peer-staffed Assertive Community Treatment (ACT)1 team, an ACT team staffed by non-peers, or services as usual (Clarke et al., 2000; Herinckx, Kinney, Clarke, & Paulson, 1997; Paulson et al. 1999). Results revealed no differences between the two ACT teams in participants’ symptom severity or any clinical or social outcome for the first two years of service delivery. However, both ACT teams had significantly greater treatment retention than usual care. In another study, clients of a community mental health center were randomly assigned to peerrun intensive case management (ICM) versus non-consumer-run ICM teams (Solomon & Draine, 1995a, 1995b). At two years, clients of both teams had equivalent symptoms, quality of life, and a variety of clinical and social outcomes. Service delivery patterns differed, however, in that the consumer case management team provided more face-to-face services and services outside of an office setting than did the non-consumer team.