Can you be a peer if you don’t share the same health or social conditions? A qualitative study on peer integration in a primary care setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Peer support has been extensively studied in specific areas of community-based primary care such as mental health, substance use, HIV, homelessness, and Indigenous health. These programs are often built on the assumption that peers must share similar social identities or lived experiences of disease to be effective. However, it remains unclear how peers can be integrated in general primary care setting that serves people with a diversity of health conditions and social backgrounds. METHODS: A participatory qualitative study was conducted between 2020 and 2022 to explore the feasibility, acceptability, and perceived effects of the integration of a peer support worker in a primary care setting in Montreal, Canada. A thematic analysis was performed based on semi-structured interviews (n = 18) with patients, relatives, clinicians, and a peer support worker. FINDINGS: Findings show that peers connect with patients through sharing their own hardships and how they overcame them, rather than sharing similar health or social conditions. Peers provide social support and coaching beyond the care trajectory and link identified needs with available resources in the community, bridging the gap between health and social care. Primary care clinicians benefit from peer support work, as it helps overcome therapeutic impasses and facilitates communication of patient needs. However, integrating a peer into a primary care team can be challenging due to clinicians' understanding of the nature and limits of peer support work, financial compensation, and the absence of a formal status within healthcare system. CONCLUSION: Our results show that to establish a relationship of trust, a peer does not need to share similar health or social conditions. Instead, they leverage their experiential knowledge, strengths, and abilities to create meaningful relationships and reliable connections that bridge the gap between health and social care. This, in turn, instills patients with hope for a better life, empowers them to take an active role in their own care, and helps them achieve life goals beyond healthcare. Finally, integrating peers in primary care contributes in overcoming obstacles to prevention and care, reduce distrust of institutions, prioritize needs, and help patients navigate the complexities of healthcare 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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".