Addressing financial strain through a peer-to-peer intervention in primary care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Financial strain is a key social determinant of health. As primary care organizations begin to explore ways to address social determinants, peer-to-peer interventions hold promise. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to evaluate a peer-to-peer intervention focussed on financial empowerment delivered in primary care, in partnership with a social enterprise. METHODS: This intervention was hosted by a large primary care organization in Toronto, Canada. Participants were recruited within the organization and from local services. We organized three separate groups who met over 10 weekly in-person, facilitated sessions: millennials (age 19-29) no longer in school, precariously employed adults (age 30-55) and older adults near retirement (age 55-64). We applied principles of adult education and peer-to-peer learning. We administered surveys at intake, at exit and at 3 months after the intervention, and conducted three focus groups. RESULTS: Fifty-nine people took part. At 3 months, participants had sustained higher rates of optimism about their financial situation (54% improved from baseline), their degree of control (55% improved) and stress around finances (50% improved). In focus groups, participants reported greater understanding of their finances, that they were not alone in struggling with finances, and that it was useful to meet with others. One group continued to meet for several months after the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, a peer-to-peer intervention helped address a key social determinant of health, likely through reducing stigma, providing group support and creating a space to discuss solutions. Primary care can host these interventions and help engage potential participants.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".