Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41543690›Full record

ArticleCommunity mental health journal2026

Models of Supervision Relevant To Peer or Lived Experience Workforce Within Mental Health: A Scoping Review.

Liam Hodge, Tania Pearce, Bess Jackson, Sarah Wayland

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Community mental health journal, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

4 authors.

Liam HodgeUniversity of New England, Armidale, Australia. lhodge3@myune.edu.au.
Tania PearceUniversity of New England, Armidale, Australia.
Bess JacksonUniversity of New England, Armidale, Australia.
Sarah WaylandUniversity of New England, Armidale, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This scoping review explores the alignment between clinical supervision models and the values underpinning Peer Work within the mental health sector. Peer Work, grounded in lived experience and principles of empowerment, mutuality, and recovery, has become an integral component of mental health services in Australia and internationally. Despite its growing presence, Peer Work lacks a defined supervision framework tailored to its unique ethos. Using the PRISMA-ScR methodology and Arksey and O'Malley's five-stage framework, 2,434 records were screened, resulting in 23 studies that met the inclusion criteria. These studies were analysed against the six foundational pillars of Peer Work as defined by Mind Australia. Findings indicate that while several clinical supervision models, such as the Seven-Eyed Model, DBT-informed supervision, and strengths-based approaches demonstrate theoretical alignment with Peer Work values, practical implementation remains limited. Recovery orientation and empowerment were the most commonly aligned themes, while trauma-informed care and inclusivity were less frequently addressed. The review highlights a critical gap in supervision tailored to Peer Workers and calls for further qualitative research and co-designed frameworks to ensure supervision practices uphold the integrity of Peer Work. Without such development, there is a risk of diluting Peer Work's transformative potential within traditional clinical systems.

Indexed as

Mental Health ServicesPeer GroupAustraliaHumansClinical frameworkPeer workPeer work supervisionSupervision

Identifiers

PMID41543690
PMCPMC13332961

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.