Self-help groups as mutual support: What do carers value?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The literature suggests that the United Kingdom, in common with Europe, North America, Canada and Scandinavia, has seen significant growth in single-issue self-help/mutual aid groups concerned with health and social care issues since the 1970s, but there is only ad hoc academic and policy interest in such groups in the United Kingdom. This article presents findings from a doctoral study with two self-help/mutual aid groups for carers in South-East England. The data are drawn from semistructured interviews with 15 active members which explored reasons for joining, benefits derived from membership, and perceived differences between support gained by membership and their relationship with professionals. Most group members had prior experience of voluntary work/activity, which influenced their decision to join, often prompted by a failure of the 'usual' support network of family/friends to cope or adjust to the carer's needs. Members reported personal gains of empathy, emotional information, experiential knowledge and practical information, based on a core value of reciprocity through peer support. It is this latter benefit that sets apart membership of self-help groups from groups supported by professionals who may not appreciate the scope and breadth of carers' responsibilities, or of the importance of their relationship with the person for whom they care. In this way, self-help groups offered additional, but not alternative, 'space' that enabled members to transcend their traditional role as a 'carer'. It is concluded that self-help/mutual aid groups, based on reciprocal peer support, offer a valuable type of resource in the community that is not replicable in professional-client relations. The findings have contemporary relevance given the raft of new policies which value the experiential knowledge built by both individual and collectives of carers.
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 | 0.020 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".