MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414694734 · doi:10.1177/20552076251384142

Views on the usability and usefulness of the PeerConnect app among Ontario public safety professionals

2025· article· en· W4414694734 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Gillian Foley, Marcella Siqueira Cassiano, Rosemary Ricciardelli

Bibliographic record

VenueDigital Health · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDigital Mental Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WinnipegMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersGovernment of Ontario
KeywordsUsabilityThe InternetMental healthPeer supportSample (material)Public accessOccupational safety and healthSuicide prevention

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Public safety professionals (PSPs) (e.g. police officers, correctional workers, and paramedics) are regularly exposed to potentially psychologically traumatic events that leave them vulnerable to occupational and posttraumatic stress injuries. In response, PSP organizations have developed and implemented peer support programs, as well as peer support apps, to promote health awareness among workers. This study was designed to evaluate the usability, usefulness, efficacy (i.e. self-reported mental health), and thoughts moving forward on whether to continue providing the PeerConnect app. A sample of PSPs ( N = 455) from across 28 PSP organizations in Ontario, Canada, specifically 14 police services, 13 emergency services, and the Ontario provincial correctional service, participated in an online survey intended to explore PSPs’ views and experiences with the app. Of the 455 PSPs surveyed, 226 were PeerConnect users, and 229 were non-users. A series of t -tests and chi-square tests were conducted to compare users and non-users. Overall, the Connect feature was the most used by the PSPs. Among Connect users, 74.8% used the feature primarily to provide peer support, while 21.8% used the feature primarily to receive peer support. When assessing the usefulness of the app, 70.8% of app users were satisfied with the app, although only 40.3% of users found the app “extremely” or “very” useful in serving their well-being. When asked whether their organization should continue providing access to PeerConnect, 88.9% of users believed so. Findings demonstrate that PSPs who used PeerConnect were generally satisfied with the app and its features; however, there were barriers, such as a lack of internet access at work, that may have prevented non-users from using the app and highlighted the need for refinements in design, implementation, and integration into organizational culture. In response, we suggest public safety organizations consider finding innovative ways to continue to offer peer support opportunities for PSPs.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
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 score0.660
Threshold uncertainty score0.676

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.103
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.287 · 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 routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDigital HealthSame topicDigital Mental Health InterventionsFrench-language works237,207