ArticleHealth SA = SA Gesondheid2025
Peer education strategies validated through Delphi at an urban university in KwaZulu-Natal.
Article in Health SA = SA Gesondheid, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Peer education is vital in higher education because it promotes behavioural change, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) prevention, student wellness and academic success. However, limited research exists on the expert validation of such strategies, particularly within higher education institutions. This study addresses this gap by validating peer education strategies using a modified Delphi method. Aim: This study aimed to validate strategies for peer education in higher education institutions through expert consensus using the Delphi method. Setting: The study was conducted across South African higher education institutions, engaging stakeholders in student wellness and peer-led programmes. Methods: A two-round modified Delphi method was employed to validate peer education strategies developed through a multiphased qualitative design. The strategies were informed by an integrative literature review and phenomenographic inquiry capturing the lived experiences of peer educators. A panel of 10 purposively selected experts from diverse higher education institutions evaluated the strategies through structured questionnaires using a five-point Likert scale. Consensus was defined as ≥ 70% agreement per item. Results: Consensus was achieved across all strategic domains, including scope, evidence-based design, stakeholder inclusivity, clarity, applicability and editorial independence. Based on expert feedback, the strategies were refined to improve their practical applicability while ensuring stronger alignment with institutional structures and priorities. Conclusion: The validated strategies provide a systematic, context-specific guide for the design and implementation of peer education programmes in higher education. They emphasise adaptability, stakeholder collaboration and institutional alignment to support programme sustainability and student well-being. Contribution: This study offers validated strategies to strengthen the effectiveness, quality and impact of peer-led interventions in higher education.
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.