Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38418998›Full record

SynthesisBMC medicine2024

The effectiveness, implementation, and experiences of peer support approaches for mental health: a systematic umbrella review.

Ruth E Cooper, Katherine R K Saunders, Anna Greenburgh, Prisha Shah, Rebecca Appleton, Karen Machin, Tamar Jeynes, Phoebe Barnett, Sophie M Allan, Jessica Griffiths and 7 more

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 96 papers, 11 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
96citing papers in PubMed, 11 pooled it
106.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

96 citing papers in PubMed, 11 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 125 citations in OpenAlex.

  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. Article
  19. Article
  20. Peer-guided movie neurofeedback to facilitate recovery in opioid use disorder.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026
    Article

36 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

17 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Ruth E Cooper *NIHR Mental Health Policy Research Unit, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK. ruth.1.cooper@kcl.ac.uk.
Katherine R K Saunders *NIHR Mental Health Policy Research Unit, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK. katherine.saunders@kcl.ac.uk.
Anna GreenburghNIHR Mental Health Policy Research Unit, Division of Psychiatry, University College London, London, UK.
Prisha ShahMHPRU Lived Experience Working Group, London, UK.
Rebecca AppletonNIHR Mental Health Policy Research Unit, Division of Psychiatry, University College London, London, UK.
Karen MachinMHPRU Lived Experience Working Group, London, UK.
Tamar JeynesMHPRU Lived Experience Working Group, London, UK.
Phoebe BarnettNIHR Mental Health Policy Research Unit, Division of Psychiatry, University College London, London, UK.
Sophie M AllanNIHR Mental Health Policy Research Unit, Division of Psychiatry, University College London, London, UK.
Jessica GriffithsNIHR Mental Health Policy Research Unit, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.
Ruth StuartNIHR Mental Health Policy Research Unit, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.
Lizzie MitchellMHPRU Lived Experience Working Group, London, UK.
Beverley ChippMHPRU Lived Experience Working Group, London, UK.
Stephen JeffreysMHPRU Lived Experience Working Group, London, UK.
Brynmor Lloyd-EvansNIHR Mental Health Policy Research Unit, Division of Psychiatry, University College London, London, UK.
Alan SimpsonNIHR Mental Health Policy Research Unit, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.
Sonia JohnsonNIHR Mental Health Policy Research Unit, Division of Psychiatry, University College London, London, UK.
University College London · GBKing's College London · GBMental Health Research UK · GBFlorence Nightingale Foundation · GBUniversity of East Anglia · GB

Funding

National Institute for Health and Care Research PR-PRU-0916-22003
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPeer support for mental health is recommended across international policy guidance and provision. Our systematic umbrella review summarises evidence on the effectiveness, implementation, and experiences of paid peer support approaches for mental health.

methodsWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, The Campbell Collaboration, and The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (2012-2022) for reviews of paid peer support interventions for mental health. The AMSTAR2 assessed quality. Results were synthesised narratively, with implementation reported using the CFIR (Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research). The protocol was registered with PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42022362099).

resultsWe included 35 reviews (426 primary studies, n = 95-40,927 participants): systematic reviews with (n = 13) or without (n = 13) meta-analysis, or with qualitative synthesis (n = 3), scoping reviews (n = 6). Most reviews were low or critically low (97%) quality, one review was high quality. Effectiveness was investigated in 23 reviews. Results were mixed; there was some evidence from meta-analyses that peer support may improve depression symptoms (particularly perinatal depression), self-efficacy, and recovery. Factors promoting successful implementation, investigated in 9 reviews, included adequate training and supervision, a recovery-oriented workplace, strong leadership, and a supportive and trusting workplace culture with effective collaboration. Barriers included lack of time, resources and funding, and lack of recognised peer support worker (PSW) certification. Experiences of peer support were explored in 11 reviews, with 3 overarching themes: (i) what the PSW role can bring, including recovery and improved wellbeing for service users and PSWs; (ii) confusion over the PSW role, including role ambiguity and unclear boundaries; and (iii) organisational challenges and impact, including low pay, negative non-peer staff attitudes, and lack of support and training.

conclusionsPeer support may be effective at improving some clinical outcomes, self-efficacy, and recovery. Certain populations, e.g. perinatal populations, may especially benefit from peer support. Potential strategies to successfully implement PSWs include co-production, clearly defined PSW roles, a receptive hierarchical structure and staff, appropriate PSW and staff training with clinical and/or peer supervision alongside safeguarding. Services could benefit from clear, coproduced, setting specific implementation guidelines for PSW. PSW roles tend to be poorly defined and associations between PSW intervention content and impacts need further investigation. Future research should reflect the priorities of providers/service users involved in peer support.

Indexed as

Mental HealthWorkplaceFemaleHumansPregnancySystematic Reviews as TopicMental healthPeer supportSystematic reviewUmbrella review

Identifiers

PMID38418998
PMCPMC10902990
OpenAlexW4392770437

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.