Program evaluation of a student-led peer support service at a Canadian university
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: University students often experience numerous financial, social and emotional stressors that can affect their mental health. The Peer Support Centre (PSC) is a pilot project that was established to provide peer support to students in these stressful conditions. We wanted to investigate whether peer support is a viable form of support that would benefit university students. The objective of this study is to determine whether the organization was indeed providing a beneficial service to students and if it was fulfilling the needs of the students that visited the service. METHODS: After a support session, students and peer support providers completed an anonymous questionnaire regarding their self-reported mental wellbeing using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9), the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7) metrics, and Outcome Rating Scale (ORS). They were also asked about their experience with previous professional mental health services as well as their experience at the PSC. With the data collected from 1043 students and 797 volunteers from September 2016-March 2020, a program evaluation was conducted for quality improvement purposes. RESULTS: The PSC is used by students of different sexes, genders, and ethnicities. Students reported having a low ORS score, moderate anxiety as per the GAD-7 and moderate depression according to the PHQ-9. They find it easy to use and rely on it as an alternative form of support when they approach barriers that prevent them from accessing professional services. Lastly, the peer support providers feel very validated in their role and overall quite prepared and helpful when helping their fellow peers. CONCLUSIONS: The establishment of a student service that provides peer support would be beneficial to the members of a university/college campus.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".