MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6893324867 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.15634134

Peer Support Facilitated Online Cognitive Behavioural Therapy for Substance Use Disorder: Lessons Learned from a Peer Support Perspective

2025· article· en· W6893324867 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Wireless Communication Technologies
Canadian institutionsCorporation d’Aménagement et de Protection de la Sainte-AnneUniversity of TorontoTelus (Canada)Centre for Addiction and Mental Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPeer supportEmpathyRandomized controlled trialMental healthPeer groupSet (abstract data type)Digital healthPerspective (graphical)Social supportSupport group

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite the high prevalence of substance use-related harms, the majority of individuals affected do not seek formal treatment. Digital interventions, such as Breaking Free Online (BFO) based in CBT, are being used to bridge this gap through improved accessibility and responding to an increasingly online world. However, many individuals who interact with digital mental health receive little or no human support. Peer support— defined by support grounded in shared lived experience and the values of hope, empathy and self-determination—may offer a valuable way to enhance engagement with digital tools. This presentation outlines the implementation of peer-facilitated BFO within a randomized controlled trial. 197 Participants were randomized to 1 of 3 arms; group peer support, BFO or individual peer support, each arm also included clinical monitoring. The study design, assessment schedule and peer support worker training was collaboratively developed with the input of an advisory committee that included lived experts and service users as well as scientists and clinicians. 66 participants—primarily diagnosed with Alcohol and Cannabis Use Disorders—were randomized to BFO with peer support. I personally provided peer support to 31 of the 66 participants. While individual preferences varied, key themes emerged. Participants consistently reported that peer support improved their ability to engage with BFO by helping them set personalized goals, challenge unhelpful thinking, stay accountable, and apply the digital content to their own lives. The biggest piece of feedback I received was “I would not have engaged with BFO as much if there wasn’t a peer support worker” Challenges that were identified, included technical barriers, missed appointments, and the need to better define and capture meaningful outcomes. Many participants described personal growth and positive changes that were not reflected in standard digital metrics. Importantly, peer supporters themselves reported benefits from the process, including professional and personal development and the opportunity to provide meaningful, person-centered care. In summary, integrating peer support with digital interventions like BFO offers a promising, scalable approach to substance use treatment. It brings structure to a complex discipline, while maintaining the flexibility and responsiveness that peer support requires. Thank you.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.747
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.104
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)Same topicAdvanced Wireless Communication TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207