Examining the experiences of student peer support workers delivering care within post-secondary institutions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Despite experiencing exacerbation of mental health issues, post-secondary students may not seek help due to perceived stigma, overreliance on the self, or preference for nonprofessional supports – including peer support. This study aimed to understand peer support workers’ (PSWs) perspectives regarding providing support for mental health concerns in post-secondary institutions. Methods: 41 PSWs were recruited from two post-secondary institutions. 17 semi-structured interviews and three focus groups were conducted. Themes were identified using a qualitative descriptive approach. Results: Three themes emerged: (1) diverse presentations and approaches to operationalizing peer support for mental health issues on campus exist; (2) peer support has core ingredients; (3) reasons why students access peer support extend beyond mental health crisis. Conclusions: An inclusive peer support approach to mental health is needed for post-secondary students. Considerations for implementation hinge on providing standardized, foundational training to prepare PSWs for the complex mental health issues that present across services.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".