Trial reportBMC psychiatry2025
The "Paths to everyday life" peer support intervention for adults with mental health difficulties versus service as usual in a Danish community setting - results from a randomized two-armed, multi-site, superiority trial.
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. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- Predictive factors for referral to a peer support worker in psychosocial rehabilitation centers.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionCommunity-based peer support complements regional mental health services by supporting individuals in their personal recovery process. This study aimed to investigate the effectiveness of the 'Paths to everyday life' (PEER) intervention, which adds group-based peer support to service as usual (SAU) for individuals with mental health difficulties, compared to SAU alone.
methodsA randomized controlled trial in five Danish municipalities compared the PEER intervention added to SAU to SAU alone. Participants were municipality social service users and self-referrals. The primary outcome was personal recovery, measured by Questionnaire about the Process of Recovery (QPR-15) at post-intervention. Intention-to-treat analyses were used for primary and safety outcomes.
resultsOf the 296 participants included from December 7, 2020, to October 16, 2022, 145 participants received the PEER intervention, and 151 participants received SAU alone. Primary outcome results showed model estimated marginals means in the PEER group [37.3; 95% CI: 35.4 to 39.1] versus SAU alone [32.1; 95% CI: 30.2 to 34.1]. A statistically significant mean difference in QPR-15 scores was seen in the PEER group [5.1; 95% CI: 2.4 to 7.8; p < 0.001] versus SAU alone, corresponding to Cohen's d of 0.43. No significant between-group differences in hospital admissions or bed days, and no deaths or detectable self-harm were registered during follow-up.
conclusionsThe primary outcome, personal recovery, showed a significant difference that exceeded the clinically meaningful change, with a small to medium effect size, among adults with mental health difficulties. If the PEER intervention proves cost-effective, implementation in the communities is recommended. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04639167, registered Nov. 19, 2020, finished May 20, 2024.
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.