Integrating lived experience into clinical practice: a case study of young peer providers in pediatric rehabilitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Youth Facilitators (YFs) are peer service providers (SPs) with childhood-onset disabilities working in pediatric rehabilitation teams. This study explored the YF role focusing on what work YFs do, the perceived facilitators and challenges pertinent to the role integration process, and the evolution of the role over the study period. METHODS: A longitudinal, qualitative case study approach was used to gather data over a total period of 14 months through interviews, focus groups, workload logs, and observations. Data were analyzed using the method of thematic analysis. RESULTS: Two YFs, 23 SPs and two managers participated in the study. YFs' work included independent consultation, resource provision, referral making, and program co-facilitation. Analysis produced two contrasting themes. When viewed as a representative of clients, YFs were considered bringing client perspectives to care, adding credibility to clinical services, and empowering clients and families through role modeling. However, when viewed as a professional SP, their expertise was questioned due to role unclarity, limited generalizability of lived experience, and organizational limitations. CONCLUSIONS: Training tailored to local care contexts and organizational supports are needed to transform YFs' experiential knowledge into experiential expertise. We propose strategies for optimal integration of peer providers into clinical care teams.Implications for rehabilitationAs peer service providers with lived experience of disabilities, Youth Facilitators (YFs) have the potential to benefit pediatric rehabilitation services by facilitating empowerment in clients and families as they navigate through life transitions.The YF scope of practice and training should be adapted to fit with individual clinical teams and local care contexts to help YFs establish their experiential expertise in interdisciplinary teams.Establishing YF's core competencies (e.g., advocacy, coaching, and boundary setting skills) can help transform their experiential knowledge into experiential expertise.
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 | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".