Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42261199›Full record

ArticleNursing & health sciences2026

Beyond "Peer Worker": Centering Experiential Expertise Within Interprofessional Mental Health Teams.

Hannah Stahl, Kateryna Metersky

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nursing & health sciences, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Hannah StahlDaphne Cockwell School of Nursing, Toronto Metropolitan University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6727-0027
Kateryna MeterskyDaphne Cockwell School of Nursing, Toronto Metropolitan University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Experiential workers, sometimes referred to as "peer support workers" and often simply as "peers," are increasingly integrated into mental health and community care systems. Despite the growing workforce, these roles remain poorly defined, undervalued, and structurally marginalized. This discussion paper critically examines the systemic challenges faced by experiential workers, including role ambiguity, stigma, precarious employment, and exclusion in interprofessional contexts. Drawing on historical and current debates around professionalization, this paper argues that mental health care teams must actively support the legitimacy and sustainability of experiential work through creation of clearer role definitions and inclusive knowledge frameworks, without compromising its community-rooted ethos. This is explored through interrogating the implications of terminology, workplace dynamics, and professionalization. Recommendations are provided for clinical teams, organizations, researchers, and policymakers to foster meaningful integration, support, and recognition of experiential workers. These include co-developing job roles, embedding interprofessional anti-stigma education, reforming exclusionary labor practices, and funding participatory research. Ultimately, this discussion paper calls for sector-wide collaboration to address structural inequities and ensure that experiential expertise is valued as core to mental health care.

Indexed as

Interprofessional RelationsMental Health ServicesPatient Care TeamPeer GroupHumansSocial Stigmainterprofessionallived experiencemental healthpeer supportpeer workprofessionalizationstigma

Identifiers

PMID42261199
PMCPMC13247629

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.