ReviewBMJ open2026
Rapid realist review of organisational supports for youth peer support workers.
Review in BMJ open, 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
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesProviding peer support can benefit youth peer support workers (peers)et by supporting self-determination, recovery and resilience to self-stigma. There is a need to clarify the role of the organisation in providing benefits for peers. We aimed to identify the organisational contexts and mechanisms that result in the creation of healthy workplaces for peers.
designRapid realist review guided by the Realist and Meta-Narrative Evidence Syntheses-Evolving Standards guidelines and Pawson's iterative approach. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ERIC, SocINDEX, Google Scholar and Embase were searched from 1979 to 2025. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included qualitative and quantitative peer-reviewed studies and grey literature that captured characteristics of organisational practices and employment considerations in youth peer support programmes. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Articles were screened independently by multiple reviewers. Inclusion criteria were adjusted to capture literature on organisational practices, and employment considerations for youth peer support programmes. Data were extracted and analysed retroductively to develop Context-Mechanism-Outcome Configurations (CMOCs).
resultsFive employment-related risks to peer well-being were identified: (1) difficulty entering the job market, (2) lack of role clarity, (3) pressure to live up to ideals, (4) retraumatisation and (5) stigma. Six CMOCs were developed; all focused on the creation of equitable employment and supporting peer development and empowerment were developed.
conclusionsCommunity-based mental health organisations can facilitate equitable peer employment through strategies that reduce professional stigma, enhance peer resilience and promote professional and personal development. Policy reform that addresses precarious work conditions is needed to support healthy work environments.
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.