“You are helping from the heart not just from the head”: a systematic review and qualitative evidence synthesis of the experiences of peer workers working with people experiencing homelessness and substance use
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Increasingly, substance use and homelessness services have peer workers, those with lived or living experience of substance use and homelessness, who provide support to those experiencing similar challenges. While research regarding the effectiveness of such peer workers in helping others achieve better outcomes is growing, little is known about their experiences in this role. Methods A systematic review and qualitative evidence synthesis was conducted to better understand the experiences of peer workers who have lived/living experience of substance use and homelessness who are providing support to those experiencing similar challenges within substance use and homelessness settings. Nine electronic databases were searched for primary qualitative research published from 1990. Studies meeting the inclusion criteria were quality assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklist. Data from included studies were extracted, entered into NVivo, and analysed using a thematic synthesis approach. Results Nine studies were identified, published from 2006 from three countries with 272 participants. Three themes were identified: peer workers’ reflections on the key components of their role; peer work as enabling individual growth and recovery; and destabilising challenges peer worker growth and recovery.. Peer workers described many essential qualities, and their lived experience was valued as a way of enabling deeper trust and empathy with the people they supported. Strong relationships with other peer workers were described as important. Many benefits to the peer workers were described, including positive life changes and increased responsibility. Challenges were also identified, with professional boundaries causing particular tensions. Conclusions This qualitative evidence synthesis provides unique insight into the experiences of peer workers who are working at the intersection of homelessness and substance use. Their experiences highlight the real benefits that peer workers have, whilst working in challenging situations in often precarious contracts. Such insights can inform the employment of peer workers. Those employing peer workers should prioritise clear job descriptions encompassing specific peer qualities, training and education opportunities, and peer-to-peer, professional, and organisational 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 | 0.084 | 0.143 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".