Cited by 30Mental Health and Patient InvolvementSchizophrenia research and treatmentPsychiatric care and mental health services

Do peer-support groups for voice-hearers work? A small scale study of Hearing Voices Network support groups in Australia

Beavan, Vanessa, de Jager, Adele, dos Santos, Bianca·2017·Psychosis

Abstract

Hearing Voices Network (HVN) support groups have proliferated in the last decade, with anecdotal evidence suggesting they contribute significantly to the recovery trajectory of the voice-hearer members who attend them. However, to date there remains little empirical research into the efficacy of these groups and the processes that might underpin their efficacy. This article describes a small project evaluating the HVN groups in the large Australian state of New South Wales. Twenty-nine group members completed questionnaires exploring self-reported recovery-related and clinical outcomes, aspects of group process, and the extent to which core HVN principles were promoted within the group. Results indicate that HVN groups are associated with reported improvements across a number of recovery-related outcomes including feeling less isolated and more skilled in being with others, having improved self-esteem, and having a better understanding of their voice experiences. Positive changes were also noted in outcomes that are more traditionally associated with clinical improvements, such as decreased need for emergency help and medication, and increased hope in personal recovery. Although this study is small and based on self-report, the findings are promising and contribute to the small but growing literature on peer-supported interventions for psychosis and psychotic-like experiences.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/17522439.2016.1216583

Cites

17 of 17 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • This recovery was made possible after engagement with approaches that centred empowerment and autonomy including peer support work and work with a psychologist using recovery models and dialogical frameworks, and trauma work.

    “This recovery was made possible after engagement with approaches that centred empowerment and autonomy including peer support work and work with a psychologist using recovery models and dialogical frameworks (i.e., Voice-Hearing approach, Chair Work, Schema Therapy; [86–91]), and trauma work.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 18 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Beavan, V., de Jager, A., & dos Santos, B.
Affiliations
  • ACAP University College (AU)
  • Black Dog Institute, Randwick, Australia
  • School of Psychological Sciences, Australian College of Applied Psychology, Sydney, Australia
Corresponding author
Beavan, Vanessa
Venue
Psychosis
Published
2016-08-24
Volume
9
Issue
1
Pages
57-66
ISSN
  • 1752-2439 (ISSN-L)
  • 1752-2447
OpenAlex
W2515284118
Cited by
30
References
18
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2
FWCI
4.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychosis (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mental Health and Patient Involvement
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Schizophrenia research and treatment
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychiatric care and mental health services
Keywords
peer support groups, voice hearers, psychotic-like experiences, recovery, peer support programs, social isolation, self-esteem, group process, New South Wales

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review