1
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      A systematic review of peer support interventions for student mental health and well-being in higher education

      review-article
      , , , , ,
      BJPsych Open
      Cambridge University Press
      Peer support, well-being, mental health, university, higher education

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Higher education institutions (HEIs) are seeking effective ways to address the rising demand for student mental health services. Peer support is widely considered a viable option to increase service capacity; however, there are no agreed definitions of peer support, making it difficult to establish its impact on student mental health and well-being.

          Aims

          This systematic review aims to better understand and evaluate peer support in HEIs.

          Method

          Five databases, OpenGrey and Grey Matters were searched in May 2021. Included studies were quantitative, longitudinal (with and without a control) or cross-sectional with a control. The vote-counting method was used for synthesis. The risk of bias was assessed with the National Institutes of Health Quality Assessment Tool.

          Results

          Three types of peer support were represented in 28 papers: peer-led support groups, peer mentoring and peer learning. Peer learning and peer mentoring had more positive, significant results reported for the outcomes of anxiety and stress. Peer-led support groups were the only type targeting students with mental health difficulties.

          Conclusions

          The heterogeneity of measures and outcomes prevents firm conclusions on the effectiveness of peer support for mental health and well-being. Most studies were rated ‘poor’ or ‘fair’ in their risk of bias. There is not a solid evidence base for the effectiveness of peer support. Nonetheless, HEIs can use the terminology developed in this review for shared discussions that guide more robust research and evaluation of peer support as an intervention.

          Related collections

          Most cited references129

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

          The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            A brief measure for assessing generalized anxiety disorder: the GAD-7.

            Generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) is one of the most common mental disorders; however, there is no brief clinical measure for assessing GAD. The objective of this study was to develop a brief self-report scale to identify probable cases of GAD and evaluate its reliability and validity. A criterion-standard study was performed in 15 primary care clinics in the United States from November 2004 through June 2005. Of a total of 2740 adult patients completing a study questionnaire, 965 patients had a telephone interview with a mental health professional within 1 week. For criterion and construct validity, GAD self-report scale diagnoses were compared with independent diagnoses made by mental health professionals; functional status measures; disability days; and health care use. A 7-item anxiety scale (GAD-7) had good reliability, as well as criterion, construct, factorial, and procedural validity. A cut point was identified that optimized sensitivity (89%) and specificity (82%). Increasing scores on the scale were strongly associated with multiple domains of functional impairment (all 6 Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form General Health Survey scales and disability days). Although GAD and depression symptoms frequently co-occurred, factor analysis confirmed them as distinct dimensions. Moreover, GAD and depression symptoms had differing but independent effects on functional impairment and disability. There was good agreement between self-report and interviewer-administered versions of the scale. The GAD-7 is a valid and efficient tool for screening for GAD and assessing its severity in clinical practice and research.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviews

              Background Synthesis of multiple randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in a systematic review can summarize the effects of individual outcomes and provide numerical answers about the effectiveness of interventions. Filtering of searches is time consuming, and no single method fulfills the principal requirements of speed with accuracy. Automation of systematic reviews is driven by a necessity to expedite the availability of current best evidence for policy and clinical decision-making. We developed Rayyan (http://rayyan.qcri.org), a free web and mobile app, that helps expedite the initial screening of abstracts and titles using a process of semi-automation while incorporating a high level of usability. For the beta testing phase, we used two published Cochrane reviews in which included studies had been selected manually. Their searches, with 1030 records and 273 records, were uploaded to Rayyan. Different features of Rayyan were tested using these two reviews. We also conducted a survey of Rayyan’s users and collected feedback through a built-in feature. Results Pilot testing of Rayyan focused on usability, accuracy against manual methods, and the added value of the prediction feature. The “taster” review (273 records) allowed a quick overview of Rayyan for early comments on usability. The second review (1030 records) required several iterations to identify the previously identified 11 trials. The “suggestions” and “hints,” based on the “prediction model,” appeared as testing progressed beyond five included studies. Post rollout user experiences and a reflexive response by the developers enabled real-time modifications and improvements. The survey respondents reported 40% average time savings when using Rayyan compared to others tools, with 34% of the respondents reporting more than 50% time savings. In addition, around 75% of the respondents mentioned that screening and labeling studies as well as collaborating on reviews to be the two most important features of Rayyan. As of November 2016, Rayyan users exceed 2000 from over 60 countries conducting hundreds of reviews totaling more than 1.6M citations. Feedback from users, obtained mostly through the app web site and a recent survey, has highlighted the ease in exploration of searches, the time saved, and simplicity in sharing and comparing include-exclude decisions. The strongest features of the app, identified and reported in user feedback, were its ability to help in screening and collaboration as well as the time savings it affords to users. Conclusions Rayyan is responsive and intuitive in use with significant potential to lighten the load of reviewers.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BJPsych Open
                BJPsych Open
                BJO
                BJPsych Open
                Cambridge University Press (Cambridge, UK )
                2056-4724
                January 2024
                15 December 2023
                : 10
                : 1
                : e12
                Affiliations
                [1]Institute of Psychiatry , Psychology and Neuroscience, Department of Psychology, King's College London, UK
                [2]School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Surrey , UK
                Author notes
                Correspondence: Julia Pointon-Haas. Email: julia.a.pointon-haas@ 123456kcl.ac.uk
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5216-2509
                Article
                S2056472423006038
                10.1192/bjo.2023.603
                10755562
                38098123
                06f9c6bc-6974-449d-a0b6-fdae56f6663e
                © The Author(s) 2023

                This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.

                History
                : 10 March 2023
                : 06 September 2023
                : 25 September 2023
                Page count
                Figures: 1, Tables: 2, References: 139, Pages: 16
                Funding
                Funded by: UK Research and Innovation, doi http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100014013;
                Award ID: ES/P000703/1
                Categories
                Education
                Review

                peer support,well-being,mental health,university,higher education

                Comments

                Comment on this article