On 30 September 2026, EUCOMS hosted the webinar Peer Expertise Across Three Continents, organised together with Habitus Collective. Thank you to everyone who joined us!
Participants connected from 18 countries — from Iceland to Japan, from Canada to Turkey — and throughout the evening we were constantly more than 80 participants.
In this article you will find a short summary of the webinar, the speakers’ presentations as PDF attachments, and their written answers to the questions we could not answer live due to lack of time. The link to the full recording is at the end of the article.
About the webinar
The webinar explored how peer leadership is developing in three very different mental health systems — Canada, Japan and the Netherlands: what has been achieved, what it took to get there, and what challenges remain. It built on the Heiloo Declaration and the position paper Shared Power, Shared Recovery: The Promise of Lived-Experience Peer Leadership.
This time, we reversed our usual format. EUCOMS webinars normally open and close with a person with lived experience. On this evening, the peer experts held the main stage, and psychiatrist Joaquim Sousa Gago (Portugal) opened and closed the session. The webinar was chaired by Vlatka Ročić-Petak (Croatia), EUCOMS board member responsible for peer expertise.
Opening
Joaquim Sousa Gago opened with three points: peer support is no longer optional but a core part of recovery-oriented care; it is evidence-based, with two decades of research showing better outcomes in social support, quality of life and recovery; and it must be properly embedded in community mental health teams and recognised as real employment.
The speakers
Nathalie Lapré (the Netherlands), peer support worker at the Recovery College of GGZ Noord-Holland-Noord — Peer Expertise: Growing Strong Roots, Navigating New Waters
Nathalie shared her own path from peer support groups at the Recovery College to becoming a peer support worker through the Talent Garden, a short programme that develops peer expertise and recruits new peer workers. She described how GGZ-NHN keeps nurturing peer expertise through onboarding, a buddy system, monthly intervision, accredited education and theme meetings — and celebrated receiving her own diploma in Experiential Expertise the day before the webinar. She closed with a question for all of us: as peer influence grows, are we still doing what we set out to do?
Yoshiko Ohno (Japan), mental health social worker and PhD researcher at the University of Osaka and the University of Nottingham — Bringing My Different Voices into Dialogue: Across the Roles of Service User, Mental Health Professional and Peer Researcher in Japan
Yoshiko spoke about bringing together her voices as a service user, a mental health professional and a researcher — and about the years she spent hiding her own experience of psychiatric care while working as a professional. She reflected on how peer programmes can end up choosing the peers professionals find easiest to work with, and named two pillars for a paradigm shift: opportunities for peer experts to lead, and professionals recognising their own vulnerability. She closed by reading her poem “Voice” in Japanese, one of the most moving moments of the evening.
Anita David (Canada), Peer Leadership Expert and Advisor, Vancouver — From Ideas to Action: Considerations for Engaging People with Lived and Living Experience of Mental Health
Anita shared how peer support changed her life, and what meaningful engagement of people with lived and living experience really requires: connection before content, clear roles, proper training, respect for emotional labour, flexibility, fair payment, and an end to tokenism. As she put it: “I am very proud of my lived experience, but I am more than my lived experience.”
Closing
In his closing reflections, Joaquim Sousa Gago noted that lived experience has already transformed mental health care, and that there is much more potential across countries. Professionals, peer experts, families and communities need to work together — and peer work must be paid and given every opportunity to contribute.
Thank you
A warm thank you to Nathalie, Yoshiko and Anita for their openness, courage and insight; to Joaquim for opening and closing the evening — and for choosing the music; and to Vlatka for chairing with so much warmth.
Presentations
The speakers’ presentations are available as PDF attachments to this article:
- Nathalie Lapré — Planting Seeds: Developing Peer Workers Through the Talent Program
- Yoshiko Ohno — Bringing My Different Voices into Dialogue
- Anita David — From Ideas to Action
Your questions, answered by the speakers
You asked more questions than we could answer live. Our speakers have kindly answered the remaining questions in writing.
1. Learning more about the Talent Garden
I’m quite interested in hearing more about the Talent Garden. I think it would be very useful here in the States, or at the very least in my state. How can I learn more?
Nathalie
Marvin Scheffer is the Education Officer for Peer Expertise at GGZ Noord-Holland-Noord. Please contact him at m.scheffer@ggz-nhn.nl.
2. How allies can support peer leadership
How have professional allies shown up for you during your journey and your work? And, more generally, how should allies support lived experience leadership in your world?
Anita
I have been fortunate to have a few genuine work allies who have advocated for me and my contributions. On one team where I serve as a Lived Experience Strategic Advisor, two leaders have consistently respected my working preferences, credited my ideas, and made space for my voice. When I became seriously ill last year and was unable to work, they chose to pay out my annual contract — an act of support that made a significant difference. They have also shown care in smaller but meaningful ways: scheduling meetings around my availability, offering a fair wage, and ensuring I had access to learning opportunities. I truly feel they invested in me.
More broadly, allies can strengthen peer leadership by creating respectful, empathetic environments where lived/living experience is valued across the team. This includes paying equitable wages and recognizing that, without benefits, compensation must reflect that gap. Allies can also advocate for structural change — pushing for roles that allow people with lived/living experience to be regular employees with benefits and security, rather than contractors without protections. While I know systems are not yet designed for us, allyship can help move them in that direction.
3. For Yoshiko: finding empowerment again
For Yoshiko: when and how did you begin to find your empowerment again, after having your power and agency taken from you in the psychiatric system? Thank you so much for sharing — your story is so inspiring!
Yoshiko
During my long hospitalization, every aspect of daily life was restricted by rules and timetables. Because of epistemic injustice toward patients, even when I expressed my wishes about how I was treated, they were interpreted as symptoms within a medicalized framework: I was labeled “agitated” or “a patient who complains a lot.” At first, I felt bewildered, but gradually I began to believe that I was being treated this way because there was something wrong with me. I had lost faith in my own power and agency.
Regaining my power and agency has been a long process, and I believe I am still on that journey. Looking back, there were several important turning points.
The psychiatrist I met after leaving the hospital understood how important working was to me. When I became exhausted, he suggested a short hospital stay so that I could rest while continuing my work at a tutoring school. These stays lasted one or two weeks. I took a break from all my household responsibilities and interpersonal demands, and went to work from the ward.
In this way, I gradually learned how to make psychiatric care work for me. Rather than having care imposed on me as a means of control, I developed the ability to draw on it to pursue my own wishes and goals.
Later, when I decided to become a social worker, he supported that choice too. At my appointment just before I started working as a social worker, he said: “You have the ability to tune in to people and listen to them. With that ability, you can work as a counselor. Go forward with confidence. The next time we meet, we will be colleagues.”
While I was working for the prefectural government and keeping my psychiatric appointments hidden from my colleagues, he also offered flexible evening appointments to make it easier for me to attend. He understood how important it was for me to return to the graduate studies I had interrupted, and supported me in doing so.
I think I needed to see mental health care from the perspective of a professional in order to understand the meaning of the harm I had experienced, particularly in inpatient care. I could not understand why I had been treated in that way without also looking at it from the perspective of those providing treatment and support.
I want to make mental health care better. I want fewer people to be hurt as I was. These strong wishes have brought me this far. I could not have kept going for my own sake alone. Coming to understand my suffering in relation to structural problems in society, sharing that understanding with the people I met, and working together to address those problems — through this process, I feel that I have gradually regained my power and agency.
4. Yoshiko’s research
I would very much like to read Yoshiko Ohno’s research, if it is available.
Yoshiko
Thank you for your interest in my research. It means a lot to me and encourages me to keep going.
Some of my research is available on my Researchmap page: https://researchmap.jp/yoshiko_ohno?lang=en
My papers so far have been written in Japanese, but I would be happy if you could use AI translation to read them.
On the same page, you can also find a report on my visit to GGZ Noord-Holland-Noord last year. I wrote this report in English.
5. What is a peer researcher?
What exactly is a peer researcher? What does it involve?
Yoshiko
“Peer researcher” is difficult to define. It is a broad term that different people understand in different ways. It is still rarely heard in Japan. I first encountered the term when I decided to conduct research in the UK. I am only just beginning to develop my own identity as a peer researcher.
The Institute of Mental Health (IMH) Peer Research Academy (PRA) was established at the University of Nottingham, UK, in 2025. PRA currently describes peer researchers as follows:
“Peer researchers are people who do research on health-related topics of which we also have personal lived experience, and who to some extent draw on our experiences to influence our research.”
For more information about PRA’s activities, please visit: https://peeracademy.org.uk/
Anita
A peer researcher is a community member with lived experience who is trained and supported to conduct research that is more grounded, more trusted, and more representative of real-world experiences. They help shift power, improve data quality, and ensure research reflects the realities of the people most affected.
6. For Anita: what would have helped after the first hospitalisation
For Anita: what do you think would have helped you, or what would you have needed, during your first hospitalisation, which ended with the occupational therapist discharging you? Do you think that, if you had been offered different support, it could have prevented future crises? Thank you so much for sharing your story and for all the work you do!
Anita
I can’t say with certainty that different support would have prevented everything that came later, but I do believe it could have changed the trajectory.
What might have helped:
- A coordinated care plan that followed me after discharge: check-ins; referrals to therapy, groups and programs suitable for where I was in my recovery; psycho-social support; and peer support and an advocate to help me get what I needed so that I would not relapse and could move forward in my recovery.
- Medication guidance and monitoring, especially since misuse later became a risk factor.
- Peer support — even one person who had lived through something similar and could help me feel less alone.
- An introduction to the WRAP program, which I only found myself over two years later.
7. Cultural approaches to beat stigma
Referring to peer expertise, stigma was mentioned by the presenters. According to the presenters, what (cultural) approach is needed to beat stigma in their countries?
Nathalie
In my opinion, reducing stigma requires a culture of connection, curiosity, reflection and openness. Stigma thrives when people are separated from one another, when assumptions replace understanding, and when people feel unable to speak about their experiences. I think the cultural approach should focus on building bridges, creating opportunities for dialogue and fostering awareness of the different kinds of stigma, including self-stigma. To strengthen connection, let’s:
- create space for dialogue about differences, similarities, lived experiences and (personal) background;
- choose curiosity rather than judgement;
- help each other recognise and challenge stigma.
Personally, I find humour and laughter powerful ways to connect with others. But I’m also aware that humour can be tricky. If uncomfortable situations arise, it is important to have a culture in which we can respectfully challenge one another and feel safe to speak our minds.
Furthermore, I believe language — and how we communicate things — matters. The words we use shape how we see ourselves and others. Finding a common language and remaining curious about the personal meaning behind words can help create understanding, reduce stigma and strengthen connection.
Yoshiko
Japanese people tend to be kind and polite. However, I feel that this can also keep prejudice beneath the surface, making it harder to address.
For me, the most important way to reduce stigma is to meet one another. Discrimination and stigma arise toward “others” whom we do not know or understand. Some people may fear an abstract idea of “a person with mental illness.” But when that person is there in front of them, sharing their experiences, and they get to know them, that fear can lessen.
I began to disclose my experiences of sexual violence and psychiatric hospitalization because I wanted to say: “I am the person here in front of you, and I have also had these experiences.” To me, this is what it means to normalize difficulties as part of human life.
Anita
- Normalizing lived and living experience
People must be able to speak openly about mental health challenges without fear of judgment. This means shifting cultural norms so that these experiences are seen as common human experiences, not personal failings. - Valuing peer expertise as legitimate knowledge
Stigma decreases when communities and institutions recognize lived experience as a valid form of expertise — equal to professional or academic knowledge. This cultural change will help dismantle hierarchies that silence people with lived experience. Many times, I see people and organizations infantilize lived experience — treat us like children — which is disempowering and stigmatising, rather than recognizing us as people with unique strengths and insights. - Creating respectful, relational environments
Stigma is reduced when workplaces, services, and communities adopt relational, empathetic approaches rather than transactional or clinical ones. Respectful engagement becomes part of the culture, not an exception or an afterthought. - Challenging harmful narratives
We need to confront long-standing cultural narratives that portray people with mental health challenges as weak, dangerous or unreliable. Changing these narratives requires public education, storytelling and visible peer leadership. - Embedding peer roles in systems and policies
Stigma decreases when peers are not treated as “add-ons” but as integral members of teams, with fair pay, benefits, and decision-making power. There needs to be a cultural shift and a reduction of stigma in the system for us to be meaningfully included, and for our expertise and experience to be truly valued as equivalent to academic and clinical expertise.
8. For Anita: tokenism in peer roles
For Anita: have you ever felt that peer support workers are included in some places or situations as a “token”, or just for appearances — to give the impression of moving away from institutional ways of functioning and discourse — but are not really valued for their authentic input?
Anita
Tokenism is something I see far too often in Peer Support, Peer Research, and other Lived Experience roles, and it can be deeply discouraging. Some researchers ask for a letter of support but only want my signature — they don’t want to collaborate, compensate me, or meaningfully engage with my expertise. Their priority is building their research portfolio, not building relationships with peers.
I also work with leaders who genuinely want lived experience involved but don’t know how to support us in practice. When challenges arise, they sometimes blame the peer worker instead of reflecting on their own role in the situation or the supports that were missing. I’ve been in environments where I’m expected to represent “all lived experience,” even though no single person can speak for every community or every story.
I’ve also worked with people who hope I will simply validate their work rather than challenge it. They fear that meaningful feedback will require them to rethink their approach — or, in some cases, start over. This dynamic reinforces tokenism and prevents lived experience from shaping the work in the way it is meant to.
9. Do the other speakers recognise tokenism?
Do the other presenters recognise the tokenism Anita is talking about? In their country, and in what way?
Nathalie
I do recognise some of the tokenism Anita described, although fortunately this is not my dominant experience. At GGZ Noord-Holland-Noord, lived experience expertise is already well embedded within the organisation and is increasingly recognised as a valuable form of expertise. However, it is not yet self-evident everywhere, nor at all times. As a relatively young profession, we still need to keep drawing attention to the value and unique contribution of lived experience expertise.
This means continuing to make our work visible, demonstrating its impact, and maintaining a clear professional identity. I also believe we have a responsibility, as experiential professionals ourselves, to keep developing our expertise and to confidently claim our place at the table.
Yoshiko
Yes, I often see tokenism in Japan too. The following reflections also draw on some difficult experiences from my time working in local government.
In Japan, peer support became formally incorporated into disability welfare services in 2022. However, I do not think peer staff are yet able to participate in ways that draw on their lived experience to bring new knowledge into mental health care.
Local autonomy is limited in Japan, and systems are designed centrally. As a result, a system can be introduced nationwide regardless of how peer work is understood locally or what discussions have taken place between health care professionals and peer experts. Every region is then expected to work within the same system. I think this makes peer involvement more likely to fall into tokenism.
Ideally, peer experts, health care professionals, and local government staff should come together for ongoing discussions from the earliest stages of planning a service and deciding how peers will work within it. I believe this process is necessary to avoid tokenism.
10. Involving people with lived experience when there is no funding
Thank you to Nathalie, Yoshiko and Anita for your extraordinary insights. I’m a nurse on a community mental health team in Portugal, and I would very much like to be able to count on a professional with lived experience. However, we are still far from that reality, and I don’t think it’s very fair to ask for the collaboration of people with lived experience without recognising their value — which should include compensation. What is your opinion on involving service users when we lack funding? In your opinion, is it legitimate to ask for their collaboration or testimony on an unpaid basis? We know there are countless benefits for peer supporters, such as empowerment, improved self-esteem and increased self-efficacy. But is that enough? I’d like to hear your thoughts.
Nathalie
On involving service users when funding is lacking
Oempfh… I think lived experience is unimaginably valuable, and I feel tempted to say: just volunteer. I have done so myself in the past, and on my own recovery journey I found it a meaningful way to start working with my experiences. At the same time, this question reminds me of a one-liner that I often reflect on myself: “Be careful what you tolerate, you’re teaching people how to treat you.” I understand that finding funding can be challenging, but involving service users is valuable. A lack of funding should not become the reason why contributions based on lived experience are expected for free. If we truly value experiential expertise equally to professional expertise, we should recognise it accordingly, including through financial compensation whenever possible. Sustainable recognition of peer work requires sustainable investment. At the same time, I believe we should continue celebrating and sharing the unique value and hope that experiential expertise brings to mental health care.
On whether unpaid collaboration is legitimate
The first thing that comes to mind is: equality. If the organisation is “paying” every employee with empowerment, improved self-esteem and increased self-efficacy, then sure, that sounds fair — for we are equals. But when other employees receive financial compensation for their work, I believe the same should apply to people who contribute their lived experience expertise.
Yoshiko
On involving service users when funding is lacking
Of course, it is important to pay people with lived experience appropriately for their expertise and for sharing experiences that matter deeply to them. Without the financial security needed to live safely, it can be difficult to open up and feel safe at work.
With that in mind, I would like to share my perspective as someone who has not worked as “a professional peer worker.” Many people with lived experience want to use their experiences to improve mental health care and reduce stigma. Some want to contribute voluntarily. Before I disclosed my lived experience to those around me, I sometimes contributed anonymously or without payment — for example, by participating in research or writing for a brochure promoting trauma-informed care.
If funding really cannot be secured, I think one possibility is to invite people who wish to participate voluntarily to share their experiences, helping professionals rethink their attitudes. Through this process, a shared commitment to working alongside peers may develop within the workplace. This could, in turn, lead to greater willingness to allocate funding to employ peer staff.
I believe it is important to take a step toward change, rather than simply waiting because there is no funding.
On whether unpaid collaboration is legitimate
Through writing about my experiences voluntarily, I came to feel that they could be helpful to others. This led to my zine project. As a storyteller sharing my experiences of mental health care, I write poems and essays, bring them together in a zine, and place copies in psychiatric waiting rooms.
I believe people’s attitudes can change when they have more opportunities to hear about lived experience and meet the people who have lived through those experiences.
Anita
As mentioned in the webinar, I feel it is important to compensate people with lived experience for their time, their expertise and their emotional labour. We can’t be the only person around the table not paid for our perspectives. People in the system and in academic institutions build their careers on our input as they build out programs, policies, research and so much more. Funds always seem to be available for consultants who charge ridiculous amounts of money, and yet funding is not available for us. Also consider whether there are other ways to compensate in kind, such as paying for a course or learning opportunity, or supporting someone to attend a conference.
The only time I do something without pay is if there is a benefit to my community. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people who will take from us as much as they can. When I come across peer opportunities that are unpaid, I am vocal in pointing out the inequity.
11. Peer support outside “the system”, and activism from outside and within
Does peer support work for people who don’t want to be treated by “the system”? How do you feel about activism from outside, versus lived experience peer work from within health care?
Nathalie
Does peer support work for people who don’t want to be treated by “the system”?
I think it’s all about connection. Peer support work is all about connecting with the other person. If someone does not want to be treated by “the system”, I feel that there is often a gap, perhaps caused by a lack of trust or a feeling of being unsafe. The first step is to (re)build that connection, and I think peer support is particularly well suited for this. Once connection and trust have been (re)established — or are at least beginning to develop — a “safe space” is created in which a person can start exploring what they need. Recovery is built in small steps.
I do not think that peer support is the answer to everything. It’s important to keep all options open and to complement one another across the mental health field. However, the person should always be supported in identifying and pursuing what they need. It is their recovery journey, not the system’s.
How do you feel about activism from outside versus lived experience peer work from within health care?
Let’s do both! I think activism from outside the system helps keep the focus on people’s voices and rights, and can challenge the system when necessary. At the same time, peer workers with lived experience who work within organisations can influence day-to-day practice, contribute to policy development, support service users directly and collaborate closely with colleagues. Sometimes a sharp wake-up call is needed; at other times, building awareness and creating change from within — which is often a slower process — is more appropriate. From my perspective, both approaches are necessary for creating stronger and more sustainable mental health care.
As I mentioned at the end of my presentation, at GGZ Noord-Holland-Noord, experiential workers collaborate and co-create with other care professionals to strengthen mental health care. This work requires ongoing reflection. We invest heavily in developing peer expertise, but as peer influence grows, we must continually ask ourselves whether we are still guided by our core values: “Are we still doing what we set out to do?”
Yoshiko
I strongly believe that peer support can also help people who do not want to use public services. When I worked as a social worker at public health centers, many people who refused treatment or support had been traumatized by previous experiences of involuntary hospitalization. They rejected all support because they never wanted to be hospitalized again.
For these people, I think peer staff who have experienced mental health difficulties and hospitalization may be easier to trust. At the time, I often thought: “If a peer worker were here alongside me, or if I could disclose my own past experiences, these people might feel safer with us.”
I also believe there is value in peer experts working voluntarily outside the system. Sharing experiences through community activities outside mental health services can help reduce stigma. Power imbalances are also less likely to arise, and people can enjoy taking part in activities together.
Anita
Yes! Peer Support can be effective for people who avoid or distrust formal services, because it offers connection without coercion. Meaningful change requires both external activism and internal peer leadership — working in different ways toward the same goal: dignity, safety, and justice for people with lived and living experience.
Peer Support and Advocacy offer:
- Non-clinical, non-hierarchical connection
Peer Support is based on shared experience, not diagnosis or authority. For people who feel harmed, dismissed, or pathologized by the system, this can feel safer. Peer Support can be a bridge to the system, around the system, or outside the system entirely — depending on what the person wants. That flexibility is part of its strength. - Choice and autonomy
Peer relationships are voluntary. People can engage on their own terms, without being assessed, monitored, or judged. - Cultural safety and trust
Many people who avoid the system do so because of stigma, racism, trauma, or past negative experiences. Peer workers often understand these dynamics firsthand. - Focus on humanity, not compliance
Peer Support isn’t about “fixing” someone or pushing them into treatment. It’s about connection, validation, and walking alongside someone.
As far as advocacy goes, it has to happen both outside and inside health systems. Activism from outside the system pushes for structural change, rights, equity, and accountability, and can challenge harmful policies, practices, and power imbalances. It allows us to speak our truths without being constrained by institutional politics and structures. Activism from inside the system is also important. It can be achieved by building relationships with staff, leaders, and decision-makers; it holds them accountable and reduces stigma by bringing lived experience meaningfully into program design, research, and policy.
12. What is needed to develop peer leadership?
According to the presenters, what is needed to develop peer leadership?
Yoshiko
To develop peer leadership, I believe lived experience needs to help shape the theories that guide mental health care practice. We also need to clarify how knowledge drawn from lived experience is similar to, and different from, the theoretical knowledge that mental health professionals rely on. This is an epistemological question — a question about the nature of knowledge. With this understanding, we need to think strategically about how lived experience can gain the power to change theories of mental health care. I am pursuing research because I want to contribute to this work.
The Peer Research Academy (PRA) at the Institute of Mental Health, University of Nottingham, identifies challenges that need to be addressed and helps peer researchers connect with one another so they do not have to conduct research in isolation. Learning about PRA’s work encouraged me so much that I ended up coming all the way to the UK!
Japan’s cultural context differs from that of the UK, Canada, and the Netherlands, so simply importing Western concepts and systems often does not work well. Compared with the UK, Canada, and the Netherlands, where individualism and the freedom to express one’s opinions provide a foundation, Japan places greater importance on roles, hierarchy, and age. People who speak up are often seen as disrupting the established order.
I believe we need to think carefully about how peer leadership can take shape within this cultural context. Simply importing and translating Western concepts and systems is not enough. We need to find approaches and language that fit Japan’s cultural context.
Taking part in this webinar and discussing these issues with Nathalie and Anita helped me recognize this.
I would like to stay connected with international networks such as EUCOMS and continue exploring peer leadership together.
For more information, please visit: https://peeracademy.org.uk/
Anita
- Meaningful Inclusion, Not Tokenism
Peer leaders must be involved in decision-making, planning, and design — not just added at the end for optics. Their expertise needs to shape the work from the beginning. - Proper Compensation and Role Security
Providing equitable pay and benefits where possible, as well as stable roles rather than precarious contracts. This signals that lived experience is valued, not optional. - Training, Mentorship, and Skill Development
Pathways to leadership training, and mentorship from experienced peers, to nurture learning and skills development — including opportunities to build facilitation, communication, and advocacy skills. - Supportive Environments
Peer leaders thrive in workplaces that understand trauma, provide flexibility, and create relational, respectful work cultures. - Clear Role Expectations and Boundaries
Peer leaders need clarity about what their role is and isn’t, so that they can decide if the situation works for them. - Real Influence
Opportunities that include decision-making power, and influence over programs, research, and policy. - Organizational Willingness to Change
Peer leadership cannot grow if systems stay the same. There needs to be a shift in culture — a willingness to share power and adapt processes after listening to peer feedback, even when it’s uncomfortable.
Coming up at EUCOMS
- 27 November 2026 — webinar on the effectiveness of community mental health interventions, and how to measure it.
- 3–4 June 2027 — seminar in the Netherlands: Close to Home: Building Effective Community Mental Health Networks.
Keep an eye on our website and LinkedIn page for registration details.
Watch the recording
Missed the webinar, or want to watch it again? The full recording is available on our YouTube channel:
