Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30946482›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2019

Peer support for people with schizophrenia or other serious mental illness.

Wai Tong Chien, Andrew V Clifton, Sai Zhao, Steve Lui

2 registry-linked trialsAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 52 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
52citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT03246932 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2020, after this paper: background citation

The Effectiveness of a Peer-led Psycho-education Group in Schizophrenia: A Multi-site Randomised Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorChinese University of Hong KongRan2020 to 2025Enrolled342ConditionsSchizophreniaArmsPeer-led psycho-education group, Profession-led psycho-education group, Routine psychiatric care
NCT04639167 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2020, after this paper: background citation

Volunteer-led "Paths to Everyday Life" (PEER) Peer Support Group Intervention to Adults With Mental Health Difficulties Versus Service as Usual in the Community - Results From a Randomized Two-armed, Multi-municipal, Superiority Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorAmager HospitalRan2020 to 2023Enrolled299ConditionsMental Health Impairment, Peer Group, Mental Health Disorder, Problems PsychosocialArmsPaths to everyday life (PEER)
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

52 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Peer-supported interventions for people with spinal cord injury.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Peer support for people with schizophrenia or other serious mental illness.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019
    Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Wai Tong ChienNethersole School of Nursing, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, 8/F., Esther Lee Building, Chung Chi Campus, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, New Territories, Hong Kong.
Andrew V Clifton
Sai Zhao
Steve Lui

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPeer support provides the opportunity for peers with experiential knowledge of a mental illness to give emotional, appraisal and informational assistance to current service users, and is becoming an important recovery-oriented approach in healthcare for people with mental illness.

objectivesTo assess the effects of peer-support interventions for people with schizophrenia or other serious mental disorders, compared to standard care or other supportive or psychosocial interventions not from peers. SEARCH

methodsWe searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials on 27 July 2016 and 4 July 2017. There were no limitations regarding language, date, document type or publication status. SELECTION CRITERIA: We selected all randomised controlled clinical studies involving people diagnosed with schizophrenia or other related serious mental illness that compared peer support to standard care or other psychosocial interventions and that did not involve 'peer' individual/group(s). We included studies that met our inclusion criteria and reported useable data. Our primary outcomes were service use and global state (relapse). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The authors of this review complied with the Cochrane recommended standard of conduct for data screening and collection. Two review authors independently screened the studies, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of the included studies. Any disagreement was resolved by discussion until the authors reached a consensus. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for binary data, and the mean difference and its 95% CI for continuous data. We used a random-effects model for analyses. We assessed the quality of evidence and created a 'Summary of findings' table using the GRADE approach. MAIN

resultsThis review included 13 studies with 2479 participants. All included studies compared peer support in addition to standard care with standard care alone. We had significant concern regarding risk of bias of included studies as over half had an unclear risk of bias for the majority of the risk domains (i.e. random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, attrition and selective reporting). Additional concerns regarding blinding of participants and outcome assessment, attrition and selective reporting were especially serious, as about a quarter of the included studies were at high risk of bias for these domains.All included studies provided useable data for analyses but only two trials provided useable data for two of our main outcomes of interest, and there were no data for one of our primary outcomes, relapse. Peer support appeared to have little or no effect on hospital admission at medium term (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.11 to 1.75; participants = 19; studies = 1, very low-quality evidence) or all-cause death in the long term (RR 1.52, 95% CI 0.43 to 5.31; participants = 555; studies = 1, very low-quality evidence). There were no useable data for our other prespecified important outcomes: days in hospital, clinically important change in global state (improvement), clinically important change in quality of life for peer supporter and service user, or increased cost to society.One trial compared peer support with clinician-led support but did not report any useable data for the above main outcomes. AUTHORS'

conclusionsCurrently, very limited data are available for the effects of peer support for people with schizophrenia. The risk of bias within trials is of concern and we were unable to use the majority of data reported in the included trials. In addition, the few that were available, were of very low quality. The current body of evidence is insufficient to either refute or support the use of peer-support interventions for people with schizophrenia and other mental illness.

Indexed as

Peer GroupSchizophrenic PsychologySocial SupportHumansQuality of LifeRecurrenceSchizophrenia

Identifiers

PMID30946482
PMCPMC6448529

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.