Assessing the impact of the iPeer2Peer program for adolescents with juvenile idiopathic arthritis: a mixed-methods randomized controlled trial
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis (JIA) is a chronic pediatric illness, whereby youth experience physical, emotional and psychosocial challenges that result in reduced health related quality of life (HRQL). Peer mentoring has been shown to improve disease self-management in adults with chronic conditions, with mixed results in younger populations. Building on our pilot work - which supported the feasibility and initial effectiveness of the iPeer2Peer program - the objective of this study was to assess the clinical effectiveness of the program in youth with JIA through a waitlist randomized controlled trial. METHODS: Eighty-one youth (aged 12-18) were randomized to the intervention group and matched with trained peer mentors (18-25 years; successfully managing their JIA), completing of up to ten 30-min video calls over a 15-week period. Eighty-three youth in the control group received standard care. Outcome assessments occurred at enrollment, 15 weeks post randomization and 6-months post randomization. The primary outcome was self-management, measured using the TRANSITION-Q. Secondary outcomes were HRQL, pain, emotional distress, disease knowledge, self-efficacy, and perceived social support. These were assessed using linear mixed effects models. Content analysis of semi-structured interviews and focus groups was used to assess satisfaction with the program with mentors and mentees upon study completion. RESULTS: In total, 164 youth (mean age 14.4 ± 1.9 years, 78% female) were randomized to the study. The proposed sample size was not reached due to challenges in recruitment, likely impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. The iPeer2Peer program did not show significant improvement in self-management (p = 0.7), or any of the secondary outcomes. Three key categories emerged from content analysis: (1) Fulfillment and Support Through Shared Experience, (2) Enhancing Program Delivery and (3) Strategies to Boost Engagement. These findings highlight that mentees valued the ability to converse with mentors who empathized with their disease experience, while mentors found it fulfilling to support mentees, and noted that they could have benefited from this type of support themselves. CONCLUSION: While the iPeer2Peer did not result insignificant changes in clinical outcomes, both mentors and mentees were satisfied with the program and felt that mentorship provided real-world benefits for disease management and overall wellbeing. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03116763. Registered 31, March 2017, https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov/study/NCT03116763.
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,007 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
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 tête enseignante, 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 ».