Cited by 209Mental Health and Patient InvolvementMental Health Treatment and AccessSchizophrenia research and treatment

Effectiveness of peer-delivered interventions for severe mental illness and depression on clinical and psychosocial outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Open access
Fuhr, Daniela C., Salisbury, Tatiana Taylor, De Silva, Mary J., Atif, Najia, van Ginneken, Nadja, Rahman, Atif, Patel, Vikram·2014·Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate the effectiveness of peer-delivered interventions in improving clinical and psychosocial outcomes among individuals with severe mental illness (SMI) or depression. Methods: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials comparing a peer-delivered intervention to treatment as usual or treatment delivered by a health professional. Random effect meta-analyses were performed separately for SMI and depression interventions. Results: Fourteen studies (10 SMI studies, 4 depression studies), all from high-income countries, met the inclusion criteria. For SMI, evidence from three high-quality superiority trials showed small positive effects favouring peer-delivered interventions for quality of life (SMD 0.24, 95 % CI 0.08–0.40, p = 0.003, I 2 = 0 %, n = 639) and hope (SMD 0.24, 95 % CI 0.02–0.46, p = 0.03, I 2 = 65 %, n = 967). Results of two SMI equivalence trials indicated that peers may be equivalent to health professionals in improving clinical symptoms (SMD −0.14, 95 % CI −0.57 to 0.29, p = 0.51, I 2 = 0 %, n = 84) and quality of life (SMD −0.11, 95 % CI −0.42 to 0.20, p = 0.56, I 2 = 0 %, n = 164). No effect of peer-delivered interventions for depression was observed on any outcome. Conclusions: The limited evidence base suggests that peers may have a small additional impact on patient’s outcomes, in comparison to standard psychiatric care in high-income settings. Future research should explore the use and applicability of peer-delivered interventions in resource poor settings where standard care is likely to be of lower quality and coverage. The positive findings of equivalence trials demand further research in this area to consolidate the relative value of peer-delivered vs. professional-delivered interventions.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00127-014-0857-5

Cites

40 of 40 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Level 2 Evidence supports peer interventions as a second-line adjunctive treatment for MDD.

    “peer interventions are recommended as a second-line adjunctive treatment for MDD (Level 2 Evidence).”

    From Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments (CANMAT) 2016 Clinical Guidelines for the Management of Adults with Major Depressive Disorder (2016) · cites this paper as [135]

    The Results section, ‘Effect of peer-delivered interventions on depression’ (page unavailable), reports no effect on clinical outcomes or loneliness compared with usual care. The paper does not assign a Level 2 evidence grade or recommend peer interventions as a second-line adjunctive treatment for MDD; its reported depression findings run contrary to that recommendation. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • An initial meta-analysis of peer support for depression was positive, but subsequent results are mixed.

    “An initial meta-analysis of peer support for depression was positive, but subsequent results are mixed.[134][135][136]”

    From Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments (CANMAT) 2016 Clinical Guidelines for the Management of Adults with Major Depressive Disorder (2016) · cites this paper as [135]

    The Results section, ‘Effect of peer-delivered interventions on depression’ (page not provided), reports no significant effect on clinical outcomes or loneliness, supporting the claim that later findings were not uniformly positive. The Introduction mentions earlier reviews but does not say an initial meta-analysis of peer support for depression was positive. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [12]Review Manager (RevMan) (2012) The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen
  2. [17]Gates S (2005) Methodological guidelines, In: T.E.t.P.a.C. Group (ed) About the Cochrane Collaboration (Collaborative Review Groups)

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Fuhr, D. C., Salisbury, T. T., De Silva, M. J., Atif, N., van Ginneken, N., Rahman, A., & Patel, V.
Affiliations
  • London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (GB)
  • King's College London (GB)
  • Human Development Research Foundation (PK)
Corresponding author
Fuhr, Daniela C.
Venue
Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology
Published
2014-03-17
Volume
49
Issue
11
Pages
1691-1702
ISSN
  • 0933-7954 (ISSN-L)
  • 1433-9285
OpenAlex
W2163176726
Cited by
209
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 31 · 2022: 33 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 27 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 1
FWCI
1.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • LSHTM Research Online (London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine) (acceptedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine
  • Wellcome Trust (084674, 100714, 091834)
  • Department for International Development
  • National Institutes of Health
  • Medical Research Council
  • National Institute of Mental Health (U19MH095687)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mental Health and Patient Involvement
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health Treatment and Access
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Schizophrenia research and treatment
Keywords
peer-mediated intervention, severe mental illness, depression, peer support, quality of life, hope, clinical outcomes, psychosocial outcomes, equivalence trials, resource-limited settings
MeSH terms
Mental Disorders, Depression, Humans, Peer Group, Psychotherapy, Quality of Life, Treatment Outcome

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review