SynthesisPsychiatrische Praxis2025
[Effects of Peer Support Work in Psychiatry: A Systematic Literature Review of Reviews].
Synthesis in Psychiatrische Praxis, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Knowledge About Psychosocial Interventions Among Individuals With Severe Mental Illness: Results of a Cross-Sectional Study.Community mental health journal · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe current systematic review summarizes reviews on effects of formalized peer support work in clinical psychiatric settings in order to obtain an up-to-date picture of the current state of evidence.
methodsSearch in five electronic databases for relevant literature reviews regarding effects of peer support work in psychiatric settings. Database searches were complemented by a hand search.
results16 reviews were found. They evaluate effects of peer support on clinical or psychosocial outcomes. No consistent effects are found for clinical outcomes. Small positive tendencies occur for psychosocial outcomes.
conclusionsThe authors of the reviews consistently mentioned the low quality of the primary studies. Therefore, the present results can rather be interpreted as a preliminary tendency. Further studies are necessary for evaluation of peer support in a more differentiated way.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.