Global Trends and Insights in Peer Facilitation Research and Practices in School Settings
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.56294/saludcyt20252162Keywords:
Bibliometrics, Peer Facilitator, Peer Facilitation, Biblioshiny-R, VOS ViewerAbstract
Introduction: a peer facilitator is a student appointed to help peers with learning difficulties, usually from a higher-achieving group. This approach benefits both facilitators and participants by enhancing knowledge, skills, and confidence. Peer-led programs improve academic performance, self-concept, and behavior. Research highlights their effectiveness in education and health, emphasizing the need for proper training and support.Peer facilitation has gained attention as an alternative approach in health, education, and social programs. Despite extensive research, gaps remain in its theoretical and methodological foundations.
Method: This study employs bibliometric analysis to explore trends, key themes, and research gaps in peer facilitation from 2014–2024. Using Biblioshiny-R and VOSviewer, it maps academic contributions and emerging interdisciplinary connections. The study involved a bibliometric analysis of 249 publications on the subject listed in the Scopus database from 2014 to 2024. The bibliometric procedure evaluates research performance and progress within an international impact framework, while Biblioshiny-R and VOSviewer visualize overall research trends in peer facilitator.
Results: This study analyzed 249 peer-reviewed articles on peer facilitators from Scopus. Publications grew significantly from 2014 to 2024, peaking in 2024. A three-field plot highlights key references, authors, and topics like mental health and youth development. Bradford’s Law identifies BMJ Open and BMC Public Health as core journals. University College London leads institutional contributions. The results of the study show that United State is the country with the most publications related to peer facilitator. Annette W. Burgess and Stuart J. Fairclough are two prominent authors in this field based on the total number of publications and citations. The journal BMJ Open is the journal that has published the most papers on this topic.
Conclusions: This paper is useful to academics, organizations, and policy makers in understanding the general picture of the peer facilitation field and allows future researchers to see where this research began and trace its shift over time. Findings highlight their effectiveness in promoting health awareness, enhancing communication skills, and fostering peer support. Future research should explore students’ perspectives and qualitative aspects, such as emotional and social benefits, to deepen understanding of their impact.
References
1. Vogel G, Fresko B, Wertheim C. Peer tutoring for college students with learning disabilities. J Learn Disabil. 2007;40(6):485-91. doi:10.1177/00222194070400060101.
2. Tobias AK, Myrick RD. A peer facilitator-led intervention with middle school problem-behavior students. Prof Sch Couns. 1999;3(1):27-33.
3. Clouder DL, Davies B, Sams M, McFarland L. “Understanding where you’re coming from”: discovering an [inter]professional identity through becoming a peer facilitator. J Interprof Care. 2012;26(6):459-64. doi:10.3109/13561820.2012.706335.
4. Thomson S, Michelson D, Day C. From parent to “peer facilitator”: a qualitative study of a peer-led parenting programme. Child Care Health Dev. 2014;41(1):76-83. doi:10.1111/cch.12132.
5. Ashwin P. Peer facilitation and how it contributes to the development of a more social view of learning. Res Post-Compuls Educ. 2003;8(1):5-18. doi:10.1080/1359674030020013.
6. Rose-Clarke K, Bentley A, Marston C, Prost A. Peer-facilitated community-based interventions for adolescent health in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review. PLoS One. 2019;14(1):e0210468. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0210468.
7. Mellanby AR, Rees JB, Tripp JH. Peer-led and adult-led school health education: a critical review of available comparative research. Health Educ Res. 2000;15(5):533-45.
8. Frantz J. A peer-led approach to promoting health education in schools: the views of peers. S Afr J Educ. 2015;35(1):1-7. doi:10.15700/201503070006.
9. Petosa RL, Smith LH. Peer mentoring for health behavior change: a systematic review. Am J Health Educ. 2014;45(6):351-7. doi:10.1080/19325037.2014.945670.
10. Lee MK, Hannafin MJ. A design framework for enhancing engagement in student-centered learning. Educ Technol Res Dev. 2016;64(4):707-34. doi:10.1007/s11423-016-9440-8.
11. Wallerstein N, Duran B. Theoretical, historical, and practice roots of CBPR. In: Minkler M, Wallerstein N, editors. Community-based participatory research for health. 3rd ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2008. p. 25-46. doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.34282.72648
12. Paltrinieri A, Hassan MK, Bahoo S, Khan A. A bibliometric review of sukuk literature. Int Rev Econ Finance. 2020;67:35-49. doi:10.1016/j.iref.2019.04.004.
13. Sardi A, Astuti I. Aplikasi R Biblioshiny dalam mengungkap tren riset pembelajaran berbasis ICT: kajian scientometrik. Edunaturalia. 2021;2(1):1-6.
14. Huang JH, Duan XY, He FF, Wang GJ, Hu XY. A historical review and bibliometric analysis of research on weak measurement research over the past decades based on Biblioshiny [Preprint]. arXiv. 2021. Available from: http://arxiv.org/abs/2108.11375
15. Aria M, Cuccurullo C. Bibliometrix: an R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. J Informetr. 2017;11(4):959-75. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.007.
16. Mougenot B, Doussoulin JP. Conceptual evolution of the bioeconomy: a bibliometric analysis. Environ Dev Sustain. 2022;24(1):1031-47. doi:10.1007/s10668-021-01481-2.
17. Srisusilawati P, Rusydiana AS, Sanrego YD, Tubastuvi N. Biblioshiny R application on Islamic microfinance research. DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. 2021.
18. Topping KJ. Trends in peer learning. Educ Psychol. 2005;25(6):631-45. doi:10.1080/01443410500345172.
19. Campbell C, MacPhail C. Peer education, gender and the development of critical consciousness: participatory HIV prevention by South African youth. Soc Sci Med. 2002;55(2):331-45. doi:10.1016/S0277-9536(01)00289-1.
20. Campbell WK, Bonacci AM, Shelton J, Exline JJ, Bushman BJ. Psychological entitlement: interpersonal consequences and validation of a self-report measure. J Pers Assess. 2004;83(1):29-45. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa8301_04.
21. Krauskopf E. A bibliometric analysis of the Journal of Infection and Public Health: 2008–2016. J Infect Public Health. 2018;11(2):224-9. doi:10.1016/j.jiph.2017.12.011.
22. Perianes-Rodriguez, A; Waltman, L; van Eck, NJ. (2016). Constructing bibliometric networks: A comparison between full and fractional counting. Journal of Informetrics, 10 (4), p. 1178-1195. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2016.10.006.
23. Van Eck NJ, Waltman L. Visualizing bibliometric networks. In: Ding Y, Rousseau R, Wolfram D, editors. Measuring scholarly impact. Cham: Springer; 2014. p. 285-320. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-10377-8.
24. Van Eck NJ, Waltman L. Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics. 2010;84(2):523-38. doi:10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3.
25. Sweileh WM, Al-Jabi SW, AbuTaha AS, Zyoud SH, Anayah FMA, Sawalha AF. Bibliometric analysis of worldwide scientific literature in mobile health: 2006-2016. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2017;17(1):1-12. doi:10.1186/s12911-017-0476-7.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Soepri Tjahjono Moedji Widodo, Muhammad Nur Wangid, Suwarjo, Yulia Ayriza (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The article is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. Unless otherwise stated, associated published material is distributed under the same licence.
