Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34162340›Full record

SynthesisBMC psychiatry2021

A systematic review and meta-analysis of group peer support interventions for people experiencing mental health conditions.

Natasha Lyons, Chris Cooper, Brynmor Lloyd-Evans

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

Synthesis in BMC psychiatry, 2021. 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 86 papers, 11 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
86citing papers in PubMed, 11 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.

NCT07051200 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

Recovery Through Inspiration, Support, and Empowerment

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of Texas Southwestern Medical CenterRan2025 to 2027Enrolled40ConditionsSuicidal Ideation, Suicide Attempt, Anxiety, Depression DisordersArmsPeer Support Services Recovery
NCT07170657 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

Teen Recovery Through Inspiration, Support, and Empowerment (RISE)

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of Texas Southwestern Medical CenterRan2025 to 2026Enrolled40ConditionsSuicidal Ideation, Suicide Attempt, Anxiety, Depression DisordersArmsPeer Support Services Recovery
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

86 citing papers in PubMed, 11 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Interventions currently implemented among orphans in South-Africa: a scoping review.SAHARA J : journal of Social Aspects of HIV/AIDS Research Alliance · 2026
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

26 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

3 authors.

Natasha LyonsDivision of Psychiatry, University College London, Maple House, 149 Tottenham Court Road, London, W1T 7NF, UK. natasha.lyons.18@ucl.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0003-1635-0681
Chris CooperDepartment of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology, University College London, London, WC1E 7HB, UK.
Brynmor Lloyd-EvansDivision of Psychiatry, University College London, Maple House, 149 Tottenham Court Road, London, W1T 7NF, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPeer support is being integrated within mental health services to further the development of a recovery approach. However, the most effective models and formats of intervention delivery are unknown. We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the effectiveness of peer support for improving outcomes for people with lived experience of mental health conditions, when delivered as group interventions.

methodsStudies reporting randomised controlled trials of group peer support interventions for people experiencing mental health conditions were identified by searching MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Embase and Cochrane CENTRAL, from inception until July 12th 2019 and undertaking supplementary searches. Included studies were assessed for risk of bias and meta-analyses were conducted if three or more trials provided usable data.

resultsEight trials met eligibility criteria, providing data from 2131 participants. Six trials had either high or unclear risk of bias. Interventions were categorised as mutual support groups, or peer support groups, sub-categorised as anti-stigma or self-management interventions. Meta-analyses were only possible for peer support groups and five outcomes. We found evidence that group peer support may make small improvements to overall recovery but not hope or empowerment individually, or to clinical symptoms. Evidence for effectiveness for outcomes which could not be meta-analysed was mixed.

conclusionsFindings from the few eligible trials suggest group peer support interventions may be specifically effective for supporting personal recovery and have a limited impact on other outcomes, though there were some risks of bias to study findings. Interventions were heterogeneous and most social outcomes were absent in the literature, highlighting further limitations to the current evidence-base. There is insufficient evidence available from trials of group peer support torecommend the routine implementation of these interventions across mainstream mental health services at present. More high-quality trials of peer-developed, group peer support interventions are needed in order tomake firm conclusions about intervention effectiveness.

Indexed as

Mental DisordersMental Health ServicesCounselingHumansMental HealthPeer GroupGroup interventionsMental health servicesMeta-analysisPeer supportRecoverySystematic review

Identifiers

PMID34162340
PMCPMC8220835

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.