Perceptions of Post-Secondary Peer Support by Student Providers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Post-secondary aged youth (18-25 years) often experience new, or exacerbation of existing, mental health concerns with 1 in 5 having a diagnosable mental health issue. Peer support (support provided by an individual with similar lived experience) has been found to reduce stigma, increase engagement with care, and empower youth. Within the post-secondary context, peer support can fill gaps in services and provide unique supports to students. Hearing directly from those who provide peer support services to post-secondary students is vital to understanding the function and impact of peer support in the post-secondary context. Methods: This project was co-designed by researchers working in Integrated Youth Services and in campus-based mental health services. 45 student Peer Support Workers (PSWs) from two Canadian post-secondary institutions participated in either interviews or focus groups. Discussions explored the availability of training, the peer-support services that were offered, as well as the barriers and facilitators to implementing a peer support service within a post-secondary context. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using Thematic Analysis. Findings: Student PSWs discussed their understandings of the role of campus-based peer support and identified nuances amongst current definitions. Common reasons why students access peer support services included academic stress, issues regarding transitioning to university (e.g. finances) and desire to explore mental health issues. Being in a similar life stage as students accessing the services, and drawing from their own post-secondary experiences as well as personal attributes (e.g. culture) were highlighted as key components of effective support in this context. Conclusions and learning opportunities: The unique positionality of peer support workers as fellow students provides critical support for students struggling to adapt to the post-secondary environment. Results from this study can inform the development and implementation of peer support in international post-secondary contexts.
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 | 0.007 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".