Trial reportBMC psychiatry2025
Intervention delivery in the 'Paths to everyday life' (PEER) trial: a qualitative study of the perspectives of the peer volunteers with lived experiences of being in personal recovery of mental health difficulties.
Trial report in BMC psychiatry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04639167 (Volunteer-led "Paths to Everyday Life"), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
Volunteer-led "Paths to Everyday Life" (PEER) Peer Support Group Intervention to Adults With Mental Health Difficulties Versus Service as Usual in the Community - Results From a Randomized Two-armed, Multi-municipal, Superiority Trial
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPeers with lived experiences of being in recovery of mental health difficulties volunteering in non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to engage in peer support show significant promise in supporting personal recovery for individuals with similar mental health difficulties. "The 'Paths to Everyday Life' (PEER) intervention was evaluated in a randomized trial during 2020-2022. As part of a process evaluation, qualitative studies were conducted to explore the perspectives of both recipients and facilitators of the community-based peer support. This qualitative study, underpinned by critical realism, examined how the delivery of the intervention is achieved, the training, and the working conditions from the perspective of the peers volunteering in the NGO operating the project.
methodsNine peer volunteers were recruited for two focus groups (n = 8) and a telephone-based interview (n = 1). The semi-structured realist inspired interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. The analysis was guided by reflective thematic analysis and through an abductive framework based on knowledge in the field and the PEER intervention context. Data were coded and analysed in Nvivo software version 1.7 (QSR International).
resultsTwo overarching themes were identified: (1) 'The contradictory dual role of facilitating groups and sharing equally'; (2) 'Equipped to facilitate groups', as well as several sub-themes. In addition, a minor theme has been identified: (3) 'Volunteer one-on-one peer support is unscripted'.
conclusionPeer volunteers providing group-based peer support in the community show significant promise. Training in trauma-informed, structured formats and fostering equal, reciprocal relationships among peer co-facilitators and participants greatly enhanced group impact. The organizational support and supervision enhanced peer volunteers' preparedness for co-facilitation roles, yet the one-on-one peer support for community engagement, sought by only a few participants, requires further clarification and exploration.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04639167, Registered on Nov. 19, 2020.
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.