[Perspective of peer helpers regarding their experience animating a self-treatment program for panic disorders].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Support groups can help to reach individuals with anxiety disorders who are not or are only partly obtaining health services. The present study is based on a program that involves peer helpers as animators of a self-treatment group (Zéro-ATAQ). Their perspective has been documented in order to identify the aspects of the program which can be improved. METHODS: Eleven peer helpers led the 12 sessions of the program, which was dispensed in four regions of Quebec for 32 persons having panic disorders with agoraphobia. The perspectives of ten peer animators were documented based on a semi-structured interview that took place at the end of the program, and a focus group that was held over six months later with peer animators from each of the groups. Their comments were transcribed and a thematic content analysis was conducted. RESULTS: All of the peer helper animators reported that they enjoyed participating in the program, that they appreciated being able to help others having an anxiety disorder, and that the program helped them in their role as animators of these types of activities. Nearly all of the peer helpers emphasized the importance of being able to count on the supervision of a professional when needed. CONCLUSION: This study revealed (1) the feasibility of implementing a program of this kind in partnership with peers, (2) the qualifications necessary to lead this type of program, (3) the requirements in terms of training and available material, and (4) the importance of supervision.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".