Online and Recovery-Oriented Support Groups Facilitated by Peer Support Workers in Times of COVID-19: Protocol for a Feasibility Pre-Post Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In times of pandemics, social distancing, isolation, and quarantine have precipitated depression, anxiety, and substance misuse. Scientific literature suggests that patients living with mental health problems or illnesses (MHPIs) who interact with peer support workers (PSWs) experience not only the empathy and connectedness that comes from similar life experiences but also feel hope in the possibility of recovery. So far, it is the effect of mental health teams or programs with PSWs that has been evaluated. OBJECTIVE: This paper presents the protocol for a web-based intervention facilitated by PSWs. The five principal research questions are whether this intervention will have an impact in terms of (Q1) personal-civic recovery and (Q2) clinical recovery, (Q3) how these recovery potentials can be impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, (Q4) how the lived experience of persons in recovery can be mobilized to cope with such a situation, and (Q5) how sex and gender considerations can be taken into account for the pairing of PSWs with service users beyond considerations based solely on psychiatric diagnoses or specific MHPIs. This will help us assess the impact of PSWs in this setting. METHODS: PSWs will lead a typical informal peer support group within the larger context of online peer support groups, focusing on personal-civic recovery. They will be scripted with a fixed, predetermined duration (a series of 10 weekly 90-minute online workshops). There will be 2 experimental subgroups-patients diagnosed with (1) psychotic disorders (n=10) and (2) anxiety or mood disorders (n=10)-compared to a control group (n=10). Random assignment to the intervention and control arms will be conducted using a 2:1 ratio. Several instruments will be used to assess clinical recovery (eg, the Recovery Assessment Scale, the Citizenship Measure questionnaire). The COVID-19 Stress Scales will be used to assess effects in terms of clinical recovery and stress- or anxiety-related responses to COVID-19. Changes will be compared between groups from baseline to endpoint in the intervention and control groups using the Student paired sample t test. RESULTS: This pilot study was funded in March 2020. The protocol was approved on June 16, 2020, by the Research Ethics Committees of the Montreal Mental Health University Institute. Recruitment took place during the months of July and August, and results are expected in December 2020. CONCLUSIONS: Study results will provide reliable evidence on the effectiveness of a web-based intervention provided by PSWs. The investigators, alongside key decision makers and patient partners, will ensure knowledge translation throughout, and our massive open online course (MOOC), The Fundamentals of Recovery, will be updated with the evidence and new knowledge generated by this feasibility study. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04445324; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04445324. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/22500.
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 | 0.051 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.094 | 0.028 |
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".