The Recovery Transition Program: An innovative recovery-oriented, peer-based mentoring program in addiction services
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Recovery Transition Program (RTP): Rationale, design, and delivery of an innovative recovery-oriented, peer-based mentoring program into addiction and mental health services The RTP is an award-winning complementary approach to standard care implemented by patients and staff in the Mental Health Mission at the McGill University Health Centre (MUHC). The RTP was designed to reduce relapses, improve recovery and patient experiences of care. In the RTP trained patient volunteers – called Peer Mentors – provide one-on-one peer mentoring, create workshops, facilitate group discussions, run family/caregiver meetings, and participate in creative activities. Collectively the RTP provides a supportive, learning and skill-building environment designed to help Peer Mentors, patients and families in their recovery. This workshop will outline the rationale/design of the program, its mission and mandate, as well as practical issues related to ethics, supervision of Peer Mentors, governance, financing, policies (e.g. code of conduct) and procedures (e.g. forms, referral methods). Discussion will include the design and delivery of the 30-hour Peer Mentor Training Program that covers topics related to roles, confidentiality, communication and listening skills, boundaries and self-disclosure, dealing with crisis, and self-care. Results of the formal RTP program evaluation will be presented. This includes both quantitative (surveys) and qualitative (interviews) methods aimed at exploring core aspects of the mentoring experience, as well as perceptions of care and satisfaction with RTP services among patients, staff and Peer Mentors. Workshop participants will receive information and materials that would enable them to consider setting up an RTP program in their own mental health settings.
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 | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".