People with Lived Experience as Support Workers and Community Leaders: Findings from a Critical Interpretive Synthesis of the Literature and Expert Consultation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this critical interpretive synthesis, we explore the roles, benefits, and challenges of peer support workers with lived experience (PSWLE) who work with marginalized populations, integrating research findings and knowledge from key informants. We find that PSWLE are engaged in interconnected practice, consultative, and educative roles and serve as intermediaries between public services and marginalized populations; these roles vary according to field of practice; PSWLE perform work that benefits service users, human service organizations, and the public; and PSWLE are encumbered by various workplace challenges, like ambiguous job descriptions and transition from service user to provider. PSWLE and other health and social service providers can experience tensions due to differences in practice models (e.g. harm reduction vs. medical model). Governments and human service organizations need to modify organizational and service delivery systems to ensure that PSWLE are adequately supported and capable of practicing according to peer support principles.
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 | 0.093 | 0.144 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| 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".