MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4251448525 · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-66727/v2

"Running myself ragged": Stressors Faced by Peer Workers in Overdose Response Settings

2020· preprint· en· W4251448525 on OpenAlexaff
Zahra Mamdani, Sophie McKenzie, Bernie Pauly, Fred Cameron, Jennifer Conway-Brown, Denice Edwards, Amy R. Howell, Tracy Scott, Ryan Séguin, Peter J. Woodrow, Jane A. Buxton

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Square · 2020
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOpioid Use Disorder Treatment
Canadian institutionsBC Centre for Disease ControlUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStressorPsychologyBusinessMedicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Peer workers or ‘peers’ (workers with past or present drug use experience) are at the forefront of overdose response initiatives and their role is essential in creating safe spaces for people who use drugs (PWUD). Working in overdose response settings has benefits for peer workers but is also stressful, with lasting emotional and mental health effects. Yet, little is known about the stressors peer workers face and what interventions can be implemented to support them in their roles. Methods: This project used a community-based sequential mixed methods research design. Eight peer researcher-led focus groups (n=31) were conducted between November 2018 and March 2019 to assess needs of peer workers. The transcripts were thematically coded and analyzed using interpretative description. These results informed a survey which was conducted (n=50) in September 2019 to acquire quantitative data on peer workers’ perception of health, quality of life, working conditions and stressors. Frequency distributions were used to describe characteristics of participants. X 2 distribution values with Yates correction were conducted to check for association between variables. Results: Five themes emerged from the focus groups that point to stressors felt by peer workers: (1) Financial insecurity; (2) lack of respect and recognition at work; (3) housing challenges; (4) inability to access and/or refer individuals to resources; and (5) constant exposure to death and trauma. Consistent with this, the factors that survey participants picked as one of their “top three stressors” included financial situation, work situation, and housing challenges. Conclusion: Peer workers are faced with a diversity of stressors in their lives which often reflect societal stigmatization of drug use. Recognition of these systemic stressors is critical in designing interventions to ease the emotional, physical and financial burden faced by peer workers.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.057
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.359 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch Square→Same topicOpioid Use Disorder Treatment→French-language works237,207→