Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38098123›Full record

ReviewBJPsych open2023

A systematic review of peer support interventions for student mental health and well-being in higher education.

Julia Pointon-Haas, Luqmaan Waqar, Rebecca Upsher, Juliet Foster, Nicola Byrom, Jennifer Oates

Erratum issuedAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BJPsych open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 37 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed
–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.

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

37 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Supporting Mental Health Among STEM Students: The REDFLAGS Model.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Julia Pointon-HaasInstitute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, Department of Psychology, King's College London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5216-2509
Luqmaan WaqarInstitute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, Department of Psychology, King's College London, UK.
Rebecca UpsherInstitute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, Department of Psychology, King's College London, UK.
Juliet FosterInstitute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, Department of Psychology, King's College London, UK.
Nicola ByromInstitute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, Department of Psychology, King's College London, UK.
Jennifer OatesSchool of Health Sciences, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Surrey, UK.

Funding

UK Research and Innovation ES/P000703/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHigher education institutions (HEIs) are seeking effective ways to address the rising demand for student mental health services. Peer support is widely considered a viable option to increase service capacity; however, there are no agreed definitions of peer support, making it difficult to establish its impact on student mental health and well-being.

aimsThis systematic review aims to better understand and evaluate peer support in HEIs.

methodFive databases, OpenGrey and Grey Matters were searched in May 2021. Included studies were quantitative, longitudinal (with and without a control) or cross-sectional with a control. The vote-counting method was used for synthesis. The risk of bias was assessed with the National Institutes of Health Quality Assessment Tool.

resultsThree types of peer support were represented in 28 papers: peer-led support groups, peer mentoring and peer learning. Peer learning and peer mentoring had more positive, significant results reported for the outcomes of anxiety and stress. Peer-led support groups were the only type targeting students with mental health difficulties.

conclusionsThe heterogeneity of measures and outcomes prevents firm conclusions on the effectiveness of peer support for mental health and well-being. Most studies were rated 'poor' or 'fair' in their risk of bias. There is not a solid evidence base for the effectiveness of peer support. Nonetheless, HEIs can use the terminology developed in this review for shared discussions that guide more robust research and evaluation of peer support as an intervention.

Indexed as

higher educationmental healthPeer supportuniversitywell-being

Identifiers

PMID38098123
PMCPMC10755562

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.