Service providers’ perspectives on youth peer support: the importance of integration and oversight – an interpretive description study in British Columbia, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Peer support in youth mental health settings holds promise as a developmentally appropriate and impactful initiative; however, research exploring implementation remains limited. To advance the field and strengthen future implementation efforts, the aim of the present study was to generate new understandings about how non-peer service providers working alongside youth peer support workers experience the peer support role in youth mental health settings. DESIGN: Guided by interpretive description and tenets of a research community partnership model, semi-structured interviews were conducted with non-peer service providers (n=11) across three integrated youth services centres in British Columbia, Canada, from August to December 2020. Data were analysed inductively using a constant comparative approach to identify and construct themes. RESULTS: Participants emphasised integration and supervision of youth peer support workers as essential for successful peer programming within integrated youth services, highlighting three interconnected themes: defining supervisory roles, envisioning role clarity and capacity and governance of youth peer support services. CONCLUSIONS: Integrated youth services initiatives and peer-led agencies can play key roles-both directly and indirectly-to strengthen the governance and infrastructure of youth peer support.
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 | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.034 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".