The benefits of peer support interventions (PSIs) for individuals with mental illness are not well known. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the effectiveness of PSIs for individuals with mental illness for clinical, personal, and functional recovery outcomes.

Searches were conducted in PubMed, Embase, and PsycINFO (December 18, 2020). Included were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing peer-delivered PSIs to control conditions. The quality of records was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias tool. Data were pooled for each outcome, using random-effects models.

After screening 3455 records, 30 RCTs were included in the systematic review and 28 were meta-analyzed (4152 individuals). Compared to control conditions, peer support was associated with small but significant post-test effect sizes for clinical recovery, g = 0.19, 95% CI (0.11–0.27), I2 = 10%, 95% CI (0–44), and personal recovery, g = 0.15, 95% CI (0.04–0.27), I2 = 43%, 95% CI (1–67), but not for functional recovery, g = 0.08, 95% CI (−0.02 to 0.18), I2 = 36%, 95% CI (0–61). Our findings should be considered with caution due to the modest quality of the included studies.

PSIs may be effective for the clinical and personal recovery of mental illness. Effects are modest, though consistent, suggesting potential efficacy for PSI across a wide range of mental disorders and intervention types.

Patients with psychiatric disorders often experience cognitive dysfunction, but the precise relationship between cognitive deficits and psychopathology remains unclear. We investigated the relationships between domains of cognitive functioning and psychopathology in a transdiagnostic sample using a data-driven approach.

Cross-sectional network analyses were conducted to investigate the relationships between domains of psychopathology and cognitive functioning and detect clusters in the network. This naturalistic transdiagnostic sample consists of 1016 psychiatric patients who have a variety of psychiatric diagnoses, such as depressive disorders, anxiety disorders, obsessive−compulsive and related disorders, and schizophrenia spectrum and other psychotic disorders. Psychopathology symptoms were assessed using various questionnaires. Core cognitive domains were assessed with a battery of automated tests.

Network analysis detected three clusters that we labelled: general psychopathology, substance use, and cognition. Depressive and anxiety symptoms, verbal memory, and visual attention were the most central nodes in the network. Most associations between cognitive functioning and symptoms were negative, i.e. increased symptom severity was associated with worse cognitive functioning. Cannabis use, (subclinical) psychotic experiences, and anhedonia had the strongest total negative relationships with cognitive variables.

Cognitive functioning and psychopathology are independent but related dimensions, which interact in a transdiagnostic manner. Depression, anxiety, verbal memory, and visual attention are especially relevant in this network and can be considered independent transdiagnostic targets for research and treatment in psychiatry. Moreover, future research on cognitive functioning in psychopathology should take a transdiagnostic approach, focusing on symptom-specific interactions with cognitive domains rather than investigating cognitive functioning within diagnostic categories.