“You can create a little bit more closure in your own story when someone really connects with it”: exploring how involvement in youth peer support work can promote peer development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Peer support relates to the provision of social/emotional support that is delivered by individuals with lived experience of a key characteristic that is shared with clients. Although the main objective of peer support is to enhance client outcomes, through their involvement, peers derive a secondary benefit to their own personal development. This study applied a hybrid participatory-realist approach to identify what works, for whom, why and in what circumstances within the LOFT Transitional Age Youth (TAY) peer services. This paper presents findings related to the processes and possible benefits of being involved in peer work for the peer supporters themselves. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews and focus groups were completed with peer and non-peer staff from the TAY program. A qualitative analysis applied a retroductive approach that involved both inductive and deductive processes to identify relevant themes. RESULTS: Four program theories and one over-arching context were identified through the analyses. Program theories were related to: (1) enhancing self-efficacy and self-determination through peer involvement in program design, (2) increasing peer resiliency and self-care through effective supervision, (3) developing professional skills and opportunities for career advancement through peer practice and (4) overcoming stigma through the recognition of the value of peer lived experience. CONCLUSIONS: Peer practice holds significant potential for the enhancement of the mental health system as well as to increase our understanding of stigma. The findings from this study offer critical new insights into the dynamics of how professional peer practice can support the personal development of youth peers and how programming can be intentionally designed to enhance these benefits.
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 | 0.011 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".