The Type, Impacts, and Experiences of Peer Support for People Living With Bipolar Disorder: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Internationally, mental health policy has highlighted the exchange of peer support between people with lived experience as a key component of recovery-oriented care. There is some evidence to support the benefits of peer support in mixed-diagnosis groups, major depressive disorder, and schizophrenia. However, no reviews have specifically described the types and impacts of peer support interventions for bipolar disorder (BD). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A scoping review was conducted to explore the type, outcomes, and experience of peer support interventions in BD. Databases searched were MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycINFO, using terms related to peer support and BD. Extracted data included study design, participant demographics, intervention characteristics, and qualitative or quantitative data on outcomes and experiences. RESULTS: Thirty studies met eligibility criteria and were included in the review. A diverse array of interventions incorporating peer support were evaluated, including unstructured face-to-face group programs, peer-facilitated psychoeducation, and web-based psychoeducation with accompanying peer support. Quantitative studies largely assessed clinical outcomes, with some attention to functioning and quality of life. Qualitative data included observations of interaction patterns and subjective experiences of programs. DISCUSSION: Given this heterogeneous literature, the effects of peer support in BD cannot be firmly concluded. However, qualitative research and rates of engagement with peer support programs are suggestive of subjective appeal. Priorities for future research include comparative studies to parse out the effects of different types of peer support, routine reporting of the characteristics of peer support programs, assessment of recovery-oriented outcomes, and partnership with community organizations to optimize trial designs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.056 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".