ReviewJMIR mental health2026
Effectiveness and Experiences of Online Mental Health Peer Support for Young People: Systematic Scoping Review.
Review in JMIR mental health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Effectiveness and Experiences of Online Mental Health Peer Support for Young People: Systematic Scoping Review.JMIR mental health · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The prevalence of mental health conditions among young people is high and further increasing. Despite this considerable need, barriers remain to accessing and engaging with traditional mental health services. Online mental health peer support is increasingly popular among young people seeking help. However, research examining the effectiveness of online mental health peer support and user-centered experiences remains limited. Objective: This systematic scoping review aimed to synthesize research evidence on the effectiveness and experiences of online mental health peer support for young people, compare these across different forms, and identify possible applications of online peer support. Methods: This scoping review followed the 5-stage framework proposed by Arksey and O'Malley and revised by Levac et al. Three reviewers screened the articles. The IBSS, SSCI, Scopus, PsycINFO, MEDLINE, and Social Policy and Practice databases were searched by title and abstract. Retrieved studies (N=8327) were double-screened, and 38 articles met the inclusion criteria. Studies were included if they focused on young people aged up to and including 25 years and if the intervention was online peer support primarily aimed at supporting mental health. Results: The number of participants (posts/comments) in each study ranged from 10 to 36,934. Seventeen studies reported on the effectiveness of online peer support, and 28 studies reported on young users' experiences. This review summarized evidence of overall positive clinical outcomes, personal recovery outcomes (including improved social connectedness and other personal recovery outcomes), and multidimensional experiences of online mental health peer support (such as fostering resonance or fatigue). Conclusions: Overall, online mental health peer support demonstrated positive effects on clinical and personal recovery outcomes. However, findings related to user experiences were mixed. Experiences were influenced by factors such as safety, anonymity, and the quality of peer interactions. These insights may inform the role alongside traditional services, attractive platform design, and safeguarding. Future research should further explore the integration of online peer support with traditional services and various digital platforms to better address young people's mental health needs and further examine its effectiveness as well as experiences in practice to maximize the peer support benefits and reduce risks.
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.