Renovating the Barnes maze for mouse models of dementia with STARR FIELD: A 4-day protocol for learning rate, retention, and cognitive flexibility.

Supporting the implementation of peer support into the UK's National Health Service (NHS) has been a priority over the past several years (NHS England, ). Peer support is premised on the idea that those with lived experience of mental distress are uniquely positioned to offer support to others (Davidson et al., ) and is associated with a range of positive outcomes, including increased social connectedness, hope and quality of life (Castelein et al., ; Fuhr et al., ). Peer support has a strong legacy in the voluntary sector and espouses values such as mutual responsibility, reciprocal relationships and collective ownership of peer spaces (Mead & MacNeil, ), which often stand in stark contrast to the ethos and practices of statutory services. Accordingly, concerns around the ‘over‐professionalisation’ of peer support in public mental health services (Adams, ; Otte et al., ; Simpson et al., ; Voronka, ), and the subsequent dilution of peer support's distinct values and qualities, has been raised (Gillard et al., ). Specifically, this has long been a concern of the Hearing Voices Movement (HVM), an international coalition between voice hearers and their allies, which has at times had an ‘uneasy relationship’ with traditional mental health services and scientific inquiry (Corstens et al., , p. S289). One of the central prerogatives of the HVM is to support the establishment of Hearing Voices Groups (HVGs), peer support groups in which voice hearers can share their experiences openly and in‐depth without fear of consequences and without pressure to change (Hornstein et al., ). HVGs prioritise over interventions and outcomes, and posit that building genuine, mutually responsible, reciprocal relationships can serve as a catalyst for subjectively defined psychological change (Hornstein et al., , ). As such, the peer values of mutual responsibility, reciprocal relationships and collective group ownership are of central importance in HVGs; however limited research currently exists exploring the extent to which these values may be realised in NHS settings. Since their inception in the 1980s, HVGs have been established in over 25 countries, with 50 groups currently operating in the voluntary sector in the UK (English Hearing Voices Network, ). Participants report numerous benefits from HVGs, including normalisation of voice hearing, enhanced coping with and understanding of voices, decreased isolation and hope for the future (Corentin et al., ; Kalofonos et al., ). Crucially, participants report that HVGs represent a unique form of support, particularly in terms of their style of interaction (Hornstein et al., ), indicating that the experiences in the group and the benefits garnered from attendance are distinct from those of other clinical services and interventions (Branitsky, Bowe, Morrison, et al., ; Hornstein et al., ; Longden et al., ). Therefore, given that many distressed voice hearers are referred to clinical services (Johns et al., ), there is utility in investigating whether HVG support is acceptable and beneficial to individuals who may be unable or unwilling to access groups outside the NHS. Prior to the COVID‐19 pandemic only two HVGs were conducted remotely using digital communication platforms (Hearing Voices Network – USA, ); although, to date, more than 10 now operate in the UK alone (English Hearing Voices Network, ). Given the resource scarcity in the NHS, online groups may in turn offer an accessible and cost‐efficient form of support. However, previous research has highlighted some of the necessary considerations for successfully facilitating groups online (Branitsky, Longden, Bucci, et al., ) as the remote context may make establishing mutually responsible groups online more challenging (Weinberg, ).