ArticleBMC psychology2026
Long-term enhancement mechanisms of peer support on college students' mental health: testing a chain mediation model based on three-year longitudinal tracking.
Article in BMC psychology, 2026. 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
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
College students' mental health problems have become an important challenge facing higher education. As a low-threshold and highly accessible form of social support, the mechanisms of peer support in mental health maintenance remain unclear. This study adopted a three-year longitudinal tracking design, collecting data from 1,842 college students at six time points, and used structural equation modeling and latent growth curve modeling to test the long-term enhancement effects of peer support on mental health through the chain mediation mechanism of self-efficacy and social adaptation. Results showed that peer support had a significant positive predictive effect on mental health (total effect β = 0.33, SE = 0.04, 95% CI [0.25, 0.41], p < .001), with indirect effects totaling 0.21 (SE = 0.03, 95% CI [0.15, 0.27], p < .001), accounting for 63.6% of the total effect. Specifically, the simple mediation effect through self-efficacy was 0.10 (30.3% of total effect), through social adaptation was 0.06 (18.2% of total effect), and the chain mediation effect through "self-efficacy → social adaptation" was 0.05 (15.1% of total effect), with Bootstrap confidence intervals for all indirect effects excluding zero. Longitudinal analysis found that all four core variables showed significant linear growth, with social adaptation having the largest growth slope (0.12). Cross-lagged tests confirmed the causal priority and cumulative enhancement characteristics of peer support. The Random Intercept Cross-Lagged Panel Model (RI-CLPM) analysis further confirmed that within-person effects accounted for 58.2% of the total within-person association, supporting genuine individual change processes. The study also found a significant compensatory growth pattern (r = - .18), with students having lower initial mental health levels showing faster growth rates. Gender and regional moderation effects indicated that female students and students from western regions benefited more from peer support. The progressive "support-efficacy-adaptation-health" mechanism revealed in this study deepens understanding of social support theory and provides empirical evidence for universities to build stratified and classified peer psychological support systems. It suggests that college mental health education should focus on cultivating a supportive campus culture and promoting the coordinated development of students' self-efficacy and social adaptation abilities through structured peer counseling programs.
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.