MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414207617 · doi:10.1192/j.eurpsy.2025.828

Assessing the Impact of a Men’s Mental Health Peer Support Program Using Participatory Methods

2025· article· en· W4414207617 on OpenAlexaffabout
Rob Whitley

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Psychiatry · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAdolescent and Pediatric Healthcare
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorkgroupMental healthGrassrootsPeer supportPsychosocialService (business)AccreditationCitizen journalismSocial support

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction There is a growing interest in the field of men’s mental health, given that men experience elevated rates of certain mental health outcomes including suicide, substance use disorder and overdoses. Evidence suggests that certain male sub-populations are at particular risk, including fathers who are divorced or separated. This increased risk has been attributed to several factors including painful separation from children, an intense decrease in social support, and a sense of failure and shame associated with marital breakdown. Despite these risks, there is a lack of official services targeted at divorced or separated fathers with mental health issues, with only a few grassroots programs available for this demographic. One such service is a peer support program known as Pères Séparés (seperated fathers). This program is officially accredited by the ministère de la Santé et des Services sociaux du Québec to provide psychosocial support including one-on-one peer coaching, weekly support groups and financial/legal advice to divorced or separated men in Montreal. Objectives We set out to conduct a project using a method known as participatory video. The aim was to elicit the lived experience of service users, including their experiences within the peer support program, and represent these experiences in a short video that can be used for the education of other peers, health care providers, family members and the general public. Methods The project involved creating a workgroup of program service users who were initially trained in basic video-techniques. Workgroup members then interviewed each other about their experiences on camera. All interviews were transcribed, with workgroup members reading the transcripts and distilling prominent themes from these interviews for inclusion in the final video. Results The resultant 20 minute video contained three themes (i) the unique struggles of separated fathers including intense loneliness, isolation, depression, and suicidality; (ii) the important of the program in reducing this isolation and providing invaluable social support; and (iii) the rehabilitative role of peer support in providing psychosocial education regarding self-care, social reintegration and pathways to recovery from mental health issues. The video was shown in a series of screenings at targeted settings including health-care, community and educational venues. It was also uploaded to social media where it has been viewed over 5,000 times. Conclusions The results imply that such grassroots peer-support programs are very well-situated to help vulnerable fathers in their recovery. Moreover, this program provides a model that can be used as a template elsewhere. Indeed, relevant organizations, funders and service providers could consider creating and implementing similar peer support programs oriented towards seperated fathers. These can benefit such men, their families and society as a whole. Disclosure of Interest None Declared

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.027
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.141

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0270.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.228
GPT teacher head0.636
Teacher spread0.408 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean PsychiatrySame topicAdolescent and Pediatric HealthcareFrench-language works237,207