Feasibility of a Community-Based, Online, Peer-Supported Spinal Cord Injury Self-management Intervention: Protocol for a Pilot Wait-Listed Randomized Trial
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: People with spinal cord injury (SCI) report feeling unprepared to manage their disability upon discharge to the community. This situation is exacerbated when they return to settings where self-management support and resources are sparse, thus increasing the risk of costly secondary conditions and rehospitalizations. These factors make a compelling case for implementing innovative community-based SCI self-management programs that empower and engage individuals with SCI. Using a community-engaged research (CEnR) approach, we developed a peer-supported SCI self-management intervention, known as PHOENIX (Peer-supported Health Outreach, Education, and Information Exchange), which integrates online educational content and support from peer navigators (PNs) through telehealth, to promote health and community participation after SCI. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this pilot study is to evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of PHOENIX and the study design, and to obtain estimates of the variability of relevant outcome measures. METHODS: We conducted a pilot randomized waitlist-controlled trial (n=30) in collaboration with the South Carolina Spinal Cord Injury Association (SCSCIA), our long-standing community-based nonprofit organization research partner. We recruited 4 PNs through our SCSCIA collaboration using its existing network of trained peer mentors. Our study design supported comparison of the following 2 randomly assigned groups: PHOENIX intervention group and waitlist enhanced usual care (EUC) group. The PHOENIX intervention was administered online by PNs over 16 weeks through scheduled "video visits." The EUC group participated in the study for 16 weeks with usual community services and no navigation, and received 4 monthly newsletters from the SCSCIA on a variety of SCI-relevant topics. At the end of the waitlist period, the waitlist EUC group received the full PHOENIX intervention. Measures of feasibility included PN and participant recruitment and retention, PN workload, protocol adherence, and incidence of technical issues. We conducted qualitative interviews with participants and PNs to evaluate the acceptability of PHOENIX and the study design. Outcome measures, including community participation, quality of life, and the occurrence and subjective impact of medically serious secondary conditions and rehospitalizations, were assessed at baseline after randomization and at subsequent time points to allow between-group comparisons. RESULTS: PN hiring and training were completed in August 2018. Recruitment began in November 2018. A total of 30 participants were recruited across South Carolina, and 28 participants completed follow-up by August 2020. An analysis of the results is being finalized, and the results are expected to be published in 2023. CONCLUSIONS: This study will provide valuable information to guide future research seeking to address unmet self-management needs and improve outcomes in individuals with SCI. Feasibility findings of this study will provide evidence from CEnR guided by people with SCI and SCI service providers to inform further development, testing, and dissemination of effective and scalable self-management strategies for people with SCI. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR1-10.2196/42688.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,044 | 0,031 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,006 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,009 | 0,004 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,005 | 0,004 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,005 |
| Science ouverte | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,007 | 0,009 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,065 | 0,015 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».