Training Peer Support Workers in Mental Health Care: A Mixed Methods Study in Central Catalonia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: A mental health peer support program was implemented at two reference institutions in Central Catalonia. The program culturally and contextually adapted successful international projects by training people with experience of mental health problems and ensuring their employment in multidisciplinary health care teams. This study explores the influence of peer interventions in mental health on the three groups of participants: peer support workers, service users, and mental health professionals. Methods: A mixed observational method design included pre-, inter-, and post-experimental components and a qualitative description of the impact. The triangulation of the qualitative and quantitative findings showed its coherence and facilitated the understanding of the results. Outcomes and measures were as follows: self-stigma (Self-Stigma Questionnaire); life satisfaction (Scale of Satisfaction with Life); participation in relevant activities (Engagement in Meaningful Activities Survey); personal recovery (Scale-revised Recovery Assessment); occupational performance (Canadian Occupational Performance Measure); and attitudes toward mental illness (Community Attitudes toward Mental Illness). Results: = 0.031). The assessment made by the three groups of participants was very positive: the PSWs showed an increase in self-esteem and a feeling of usefulness; users of the service described the experience as a source of hope and optimism in their recovery process; and professionals described the program as a positive step in their professional growth. Discussion: The peer-to-peer strategy is a source of hope in the personal recovery process, providing meaning to life for the PSWs while providing an extra source of support to service users in their process of personal recovery. The results offer us lines of improvement for future implementations. PSW's final emphasis has us reflecting on improvements to enhance their own wellness in mental health care services. The findings show the importance of working on life projects and their impact on the recovery process.
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 | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".