Barriers and Facilitators to the Implementation of a Peer Support Intervention in Universities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A growing number of postsecondary institutions offer peer support interventions to promote mental health among their students. However, little is known about the key factors that influence the implementation of this type of intervention. This study explored barriers and facilitators to implementing an online peer support program based on Acceptance and Commitment Therapy aimed at reducing stress and anxiety among students of three universities in Montreal, Canada. Peer supporters were asked to complete a survey containing open-ended questions at the end of each semester. Interviews were also conducted with the program coordinator, three psychologists who acted as supervisors, and 14 peer supporters. The data were analysed with an inductive and a deductive approach using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Perceived barriers to the implementation of the intervention included technical problems with the videoconferencing platform, psychosocial and comorbidity issues among peers, recruitment difficulties, and communication concerns between stakeholders. Key perceived facilitators were the theoretical and empirical foundations of the intervention, the support offered by directors, and the process used to recruit, select, and supervise peer supporters. Based on the results of this study, practical recommendations are provided for researchers and practitioners interested in implementing online peer support initiatives in postsecondary institutions.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".