ArticlePLOS mental health2026
"Peer with a P versus a p": A mixed-methods study of peer support training, service delivery, and supervision across global contexts.
Article in PLOS mental health, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Peer support services in which people with lived experience provide non-clinical, mutualistic support are effective in improving health outcomes for people with serious mental health challenges. Despite its demonstrated effectiveness, there is limited research on peer supporters' experiences with training, service delivery, and supervision across diverse global contexts. This explanatory mixed methods study explored these perspectives through a survey (N = 101), key informant interviews (N = 13), and focus group discussions (N = 14). Quantitative data from the survey was summarized descriptively, and qualitative data were analyzed using thematic content analysis. Participants reported high use of peer-specific competencies including sharing lived experience (89.1%), collaboration and care (81.2%), and communication (78.2%). Themes emerging from qualitative data emphasized role clarity, collaboration with non-peers, accessible training, and peer supervision. Challenges identified included stigma, inequitable compensation, limited career pathways, and inconsistent training quality. Many participants preferred peer-led or co-supervision models. In contexts without formalized peer support infrastructures, grassroots and faith-based organizations played a critical role in delivering peer support services. These findings highlight common foundations and context-specific nuances necessary for strengthening peer support across contexts, including standardized training competencies, sustainable and inclusive training, equitable compensation, and peer supervision models.
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.