“A peer support worker can really be there supporting the youth throughout the whole process”: a qualitative study exploring the role of peer support in providing substance use services to youth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Youth (ages 12-24) rarely access services and supports to address substance use concerns. Peer support can facilitate service engagement and has been associated with positive substance use recovery outcomes in adults, yet few studies have examined this role among youth specifically. As such, this qualitative study explored the role of peer support in providing substance use services to youth in British Columbia and how best to support them in their role. METHODS: Participatory action research methods were used by partnering with youth who had lived/living experience of substance use, including peer support workers, to co-design the research protocol and materials. An initial focus group and subsequent interviews were held with 18 peer support workers who provide services to youth (ages 12-24) based on their own lived experience with mental health and/or substance use. The discussions were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analysed thematically using an inductive approach. RESULTS: Peer support workers' core experiences providing substance use services to youth centred around supporting youth throughout the whole process. This was accomplished by meeting youth where they are at, providing individualized care, and bridging the gap between other services and supports. However, participants experienced multiple organizational barriers hindering their ability to support youth and stressed the importance of having an employer who understands the work you are doing. This involved having someone advocating for the peer support role to promote collaboration, empowering peers to set boundaries and define their own role, and providing adequate training and mentorship. Finally, peer support workers described how their lived experience bridges connection and de-stigmatization at the individual, organizational, and community level, which was unique to their role. CONCLUSIONS: Peer support plays a unique role in youths' substance use journeys, given their own lived experience and flexibility within their role. However, their position is often misunderstood by employers and other service providers, leaving peers with inadequate support, training, and mentorship to do their job. The findings from this study call for improved integration of peer support into service environments, as well as standardized training that is in-depth and continuous.
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 | 0.018 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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".