Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37916032›Full record

ArticleSSM. Mental health2022

Implementing peer support in higher education: A feasibility study.

T G Osborn, R Town, R Ellis, J E J Buckman, R Saunders, P Fonagy

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in SSM. Mental health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

6 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

T G OsbornDivision of Psychology and Language Sciences, Faculty of Brain Sciences, UCL, 26 Bedford Way, London, WC1H 0AP, UK.
R TownDivision of Psychology and Language Sciences, Faculty of Brain Sciences, UCL, 26 Bedford Way, London, WC1H 0AP, UK.
R EllisDivision of Psychology and Language Sciences, Faculty of Brain Sciences, UCL, 26 Bedford Way, London, WC1H 0AP, UK.
J E J BuckmanCentre for Outcomes Research and Effectiveness (CORE), Research Department of Clinical Educational & Health Psychology, University College London, 1-19 Torrington Place, London, WC1E 7HB, UK.
R SaundersCentre for Outcomes Research and Effectiveness (CORE), Research Department of Clinical Educational & Health Psychology, University College London, 1-19 Torrington Place, London, WC1E 7HB, UK.
P FonagyDivision of Psychology and Language Sciences, Faculty of Brain Sciences, UCL, 26 Bedford Way, London, WC1H 0AP, UK.
Department of Health and Social Care · GBUniversity College London · GBEvidence Based Research (United States) · USLanguage Science (South Korea) · KR

Funding

Wellcome Trust 201292/Z/16/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: When experiencing mental distress, many university students seek support from their peers. In schools and mental health services, formalised peer support interventions have demonstrated some success but implementation challenges have been reported. This study aimed to assess the feasibility, acceptability and safety of a novel manualized peer support intervention and associated data collection processes. Methods: A longitudinal mixed methods study was conducted following the pilot of a peer support intervention at a large London university between June 2021 and May 2022. The study utilised data routinely recorded on all students who booked a peer support session, focus groups with nine peer workers and five staff members implementing the intervention, pre-post intervention surveys with 13 students and qualitative interviews with 10 of those students. Results: 169 bookings were made during the pilot, of which 130 (77%) were attended, with November the peak month. Staff and peer workers described strong motivation and commitment to implement the intervention, noting that the peer support model and peer worker role addressed previously unmet needs at the university. However, students described implementation problems relating to the coherence of the intervention and the burden of participation. While students mostly described acceptable experiences, there were examples where acceptability was lower. No adverse events were reported during the pilot. Conclusion: The training and supervision of peer workers, and the provision of one-to-one peer support to students was found to be feasible, mostly acceptable, and safe. However, sustained implementation difficulties were observed. These pose challenges to the scalability of peer support in universities. We make recommendations to improve implementation of peer support including improving reach, greater clarity about the intervention, and fuller involvement of students throughout.

Indexed as

AcceptabilityFeasibilityImplementationPeer workSafetyStudent mental health

Identifiers

PMID37916032
PMCPMC10616816
OpenAlexW4313433624

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.