Peer support work for people experiencing mental distress attending the emergency department: Exploring the potential
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study explored the benefits and limitations of employing peer support workers, who utilise their own lived experience of mental distress and recovery, to support people experiencing mental distress who are attending the ED. METHODS: This co-produced qualitative study utilised four phases: (i) assemble a collaborative multi-disciplinary research team and Expert Panel, of which at least half identified as having lived experience; (ii) a site visit to an ED; (iii) focus groups with consumers, support persons and ED staff; and (iv) a learning workshop for peer workers. RESULTS: Focus groups were run for consumers (n = 7), support persons (n = 5) and ED staff (n = 7). Eleven consumer peer workers participated in the learning workshop. Four themes were identified and triangulated: the individual in distress, peer support work, a 'Peers in EDs' service and the ED context. Overall, findings suggest that peer support workers contribute important skills including listening, de-escalation, relationship-building and empathy. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified that peer support workers would bring important skills to an ED (e.g. empathetic support, de-escalation). However, significant workforce and organisational support would be required.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.025 | 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".