Drawing on the Lived Experiences of Peer Support Workers in the provision of Substance and Addiction Services: A Case Study of ABC Health Center
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Substance and drug abuse can have long-term effects on the physical, social, and mental well-being of people, and can lead to death. The highest percentage of drug users in Canada can be found among youth and young adults. The use of substances such as alcohol, tobacco or cannabis may lead them into vulnerable situations and risk of addiction. I conducted a qualitative research study where six (6) peer support workers (18 to 50) working with ABC Health Center were recruited and interviewed to obtain diverse information on their lived experiences in the provision of substance and addiction services in a city in Niagara Region. One (1) FGD was conducted among clinicians and/or counselors who work with and support the peer support workers. Data was collected in January 2023. The semi-structured interviews and FGD were audio recorded, transcribed, de-identified, and analyzed thematically. Many of the peer support workers have previously been clients with ABC Health Center and their greatest motivation is the desire to help other youths who are going through similar situations that they have recovered from. Some of the day-to-day activities conducted by peer support workers include: conducting one-on-one sessions with clients, facilitating group discussions, and providing referrals for information and services. One of the benefits associated with peer support is being in a position to support other people recover from substance and addiction challenges. Some of the challenges faced by peer support workers include: the feeling of being vulnerable; not knowing when to draw the line in oversharing and fear of being put into compromising situations. Peer support workers play a critical function in being role models in the recovery process among their fellow youths and young adults. This is done by establishing mutual relationships based on trust. Their biggest desire is to give back through sharing their lived experience and helping others overcome challenges with substances and addiction.
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 | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.031 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".