Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41469056›Full record

ReviewBMJ open2025

Mental health peer support relationship: a realist informed qualitative meta synthesis.

Corinna Hackmann, Amanda Green, Ruby Pease, Izobel Clegg, Melanie Handley

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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

5 authors.

Corinna HackmannNorfolk and Suffolk Foundation Trust, Norwich, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4940-6998
Amanda GreenNorfolk and Suffolk Foundation Trust, Norwich, UK.
Ruby PeaseNorfolk and Suffolk Foundation Trust, Norwich, UK.
Izobel CleggNorfolk and Suffolk Foundation Trust, Norwich, UK.
Melanie HandleyUniversity of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, UK m.j.handley@herts.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8037-5042

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo understand how key relational factors lead to observed outcomes in mental health peer support.

designThis realist-informed qualitative review synthesised findings from 18 studies to develop programme theory relating to interpersonal contexts, linked outcomes and underlying mechanisms of change of mental health peer support. DATA SOURCES: Four databases were searched: PsycINFO, Embase, Medline, CINAHL. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: All studies were evaluated for relevance and rigour for development of programme theory. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Qualitative data were extracted from 20 studies. A realist-informed synthesis identified repeating themes with context-mechanism-outcome configurations.

resultsThis identified five key contextual factors that together form the APPEAR framework (Accepting, Personalised Practice, Empowering, Available and Reciprocal). These contextual factors were found to interact to create the conditions for improved personal recovery outcomes in the domains of (1) self-acceptance, (2) confidence, (3) hopefulness, (4) self-expression, (5) relationships and (6) knowledge and skills.

conclusionsThe APPEAR framework offers an operational foundation for understanding interpersonal mental health peer support interventions.

Indexed as

Interpersonal RelationsMental DisordersMental HealthPeer GroupSocial SupportHumansQualitative ResearchEmpathyHealth WorkforceMENTAL HEALTHProtocols & guidelines

Identifiers

PMID41469056
PMCPMC12766804

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.