Peer worker or client?: conflicting identities among peer workers engaged in harm reduction service delivery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: This study sought to identify challenges surrounding peer programming in Ottawa and to provide realistic recommendations for reducing these barriers.Methods: In-person, semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with managers of peer programming initiatives and people with lived experience of drug use who had previously been or were currently engaged in peer programming in Ottawa. Interviews were transcribed and coded for emergent themes using thematic analysis informed by grounded theory.Results: Eleven interviews were held with peer workers and six were held with program managers between January and March 2016. A number of emergent themes were identified, but an overarching message emerged about peer workers’ difficulties separating their identities as people who use drugs and require harm reduction services from their identities as peer workers working in harm reduction to help others who use drugs. This manifested in difficulty reporting issues of triggering, reluctance to use the agency’s harm reduction services, and feeling ‘stuck’ in positions that were dependent on a ‘drug user’ identity.Conclusion: The themes explored by peer workers in this study, particularly those of conflicting identities and the pressure to perform, contribute substantially to the evidence base on peer workers in harm reduction. We explore these themes through a symbolic interactionist lens, which notes that one’s sense of self-worth is often intrinsically linked with one’s ability to successfully perform a given identity. Collaboration between agencies in supporting peer workers and reminding them of their ongoing ability to use agency services as a client at the agency where they are employed or elsewhere, along with offering training sessions to help peer workers develop skills outside of harm reduction work may be beneficial in alleviating these challenges.
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 | 0.015 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".