“You are helping from the heart not just from the head”: a systematic review and qualitative evidence synthesis of the experiences of peer workers working with people experiencing homelessness and substance use
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background Increasingly, substance use and homelessness services have peer workers, those with lived or living experience of substance use and homelessness, who provide support to those experiencing similar challenges. While research regarding the effectiveness of such peer workers in helping others achieve better outcomes is growing, little is known about their experiences in this role. Methods A systematic review and qualitative evidence synthesis was conducted to better understand the experiences of peer workers who have lived/living experience of substance use and homelessness who are providing support to those experiencing similar challenges within substance use and homelessness settings. Nine electronic databases were searched for primary qualitative research published from 1990. Studies meeting the inclusion criteria were quality assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklist. Data from included studies were extracted, entered into NVivo, and analysed using a thematic synthesis approach. Results Nine studies were identified, published from 2006 from three countries with 272 participants. Three themes were identified: peer workers’ reflections on the key components of their role; peer work as enabling individual growth and recovery; and destabilising challenges peer worker growth and recovery.. Peer workers described many essential qualities, and their lived experience was valued as a way of enabling deeper trust and empathy with the people they supported. Strong relationships with other peer workers were described as important. Many benefits to the peer workers were described, including positive life changes and increased responsibility. Challenges were also identified, with professional boundaries causing particular tensions. Conclusions This qualitative evidence synthesis provides unique insight into the experiences of peer workers who are working at the intersection of homelessness and substance use. Their experiences highlight the real benefits that peer workers have, whilst working in challenging situations in often precarious contracts. Such insights can inform the employment of peer workers. Those employing peer workers should prioritise clear job descriptions encompassing specific peer qualities, training and education opportunities, and peer-to-peer, professional, and organisational support.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,084 | 0,143 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,006 | 0,006 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,017 | 0,019 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Communication savante | 0,006 | 0,009 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,007 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».