Table 2.

Similarities and differences between formal and informal helping relationships.

Categories	Similarities and differences	Citations
Presence and availability	Similarity: Family members and friends as much as practitioners were there, present and available.	“Well, let’s just say that as far as similarities go, being there. [. . .] Being there, being available. Their availability is not the same. [A given practitioner], with her, I had to respect the fact that that my hour was my hour. And to call her otherwise in the event of an emergency. Which happened twice big time. [A given informal helper] I can call him, like, anytime. I could have called him in the evening at midnight and he would have been there if I had needed him then.” (person in recovery)
	Difference:
	Continuous presence of family members and friends.
	Ad hoc presence and availability of practitioners.
Companionship	Difference:	“In the formal context, we really need to bear in mind that, seeing how it’s professional, how are we going to be there for the person? Our own personal stuff, that stays pretty much personal. I might say certain things that are public enough or conspicuous enough or things that will really make a difference. But we must always be aware of that with a person.” (practitioner)
	Fun and shared activities at centre of relationship with family and friends.
	Practitioner had to set boundaries on this personal dimension.
Reciprocity	Difference: People in recovery saw their relationship with informal helpers as more symmetrical, mutual and reciprocal; this was rarely the case in their relationship with practitioners.	“[. . .] it’s a relationship that remains asymmetrical as well. I mean, me, my friends, I hope to have a symmetrical relationship with them. I want to be able to hear what they have to say but I also want them to hear what I have to say. I can see that we’re there for each other, whereas in the therapeutic relationship, I’m there for the other person and the other person is not there for me and that. . . that makes a difference. [. . .] In therapy, I don’t really exist all that much. It is what it is. The relationship is asymmetrical.” (practitioner)
Communication	Similarities:	“But, in my opinion, with friends, let’s say, you don’t necessarily talk about the same things that you’ll talk about when you’re in therapy. [. . .] in my case, I’m going through a stretch in my life where, well, I’ve been on work leave for the past eight months and all. When my friends see me it’s “how’re doing”, “how’s it going”, and all that. I try to move. . . to cut short on that, and quickly move on to other things. “Yeah, yeah, doing fine, still going to the support group’ and all that, I give them a little something, a clue about my medication and all that. But [. . .] I don’t want it to go beyond that, no.” (informal helper)
	Communication rested on active listening and an open, non-judgemental attitude.
	Speaking and discussions made it possible to ‘grow through understanding’.
	Differences:
	Communication was more composed with practitioners and more unfiltered with family members and friends.
	Topics covered varied according to type of relationship: more delimited with practitioners (vs. talking about this and that with informal helpers), but more in depth.
Emotional involvement	Differences:	“When you’re close to someone, anxiety, because you’re close, you know, you’re in it, you sympathise. And it’s hard at times to keep sight of what will really be helpful. Because we have our own fears of the situation. Sometimes you want to insist on something. Sometimes. Whereas, by having that empathy, there’s a certain distance as well. I think that can help.” (practitioner)
	Informal helpers were more invested emotionally, whereas practitioners empathised (instead of sympathising).
	Practitioners were outsiders without the same emotional attachment. This distance afforded a sense of safety and freedom that facilitated intervention.