ArticleBMJ mental health2026
Digital peer support interventions for people with mental health conditions in outpatient settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in BMJ mental health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Toward Personalized Psychoeducational Interventions for Psychophysical Health: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis for Tailored Intervention Selection.Journal of personalized medicine · 2026Review
- Neuropsychological Mechanisms Associated with the Effectiveness of AI-Delivered Health Promotion Programs: A Comprehensive Meta-Analysis.Brain sciences · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY SELECTION AND ANALYSIS: We conducted a systematic review and random-effects meta-analysis of controlled interventional studies. Five databases (MEDLINE, CENTRAL, Embase, PsycINFO) were searched up to January 2025. Studies evaluated digital peer support via online platforms, mobile apps or digital communities for people aged ≥16 years with mental health conditions. Outcomes included clinical symptoms (depression, anxiety), functioning (quality of life, social functioning) and treatment engagement. Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 for randomised controlled trials and ROBINS-I for non-randomised studies. Certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation).
findings29 studies including 5825 participants were included. Digital peer support was associated with small-to-moderate improvements in symptoms of depression (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.28; 95% CI -0.42 to -0.14) and anxiety (SMD -0.47; 95% CI -0.68 to -0.27). Functional outcomes improved modestly: social functioning (SMD 0.18; 95% CI 0.07 to 0.29), quality of life (SMD 0.14; 95% CI 0.02 to 0.26), patient activation (SMD 0.39; 95% CI 0.23 to 0.55) and personal recovery (SMD 0.23; 95% CI 0.11 to 0.35). No significant effects were observed for treatment engagement or satisfaction. Preliminary evidence suggested sustained benefits for depression, anxiety and social functioning. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Digital peer support offers modest improvements in symptoms and functioning for individuals with mental health conditions and may be considered as an adjunct to usual care to enhance engagement and provide accessible support between clinical contacts. Key priorities include establishing optimal intervention models, clarifying longer-term benefits, and ensuring these approaches can be delivered safely and sustainably within routine outpatient services. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42023445194.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.