An exploratory study of working alliance in traumatic brain injury peer support
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Peer support is recognised as a promising intervention for people with traumatic brain injury (TBI). Peer support increases belonging, mood and self-acceptance after TBI. In peer support, working alliance is associated with rehabilitation engagement and better health-related outcomes. A better understanding of the working alliance formed between those providing and receiving TBI peer support will inform design considerations for creating peer support networks, including specific considerations for matching peer support workers with peer support receivers. OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this study were to characterise how working alliance is developed through brain injury peer support, and to identify barriers and facilitators of creating peer support networks. METHODS: This study used a qualitative interpretive description methodology. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with peer support receivers and peer support workers who were involved in a co-designed TBI peer support program, as well as community partners who were involved in the development or implementation of the program. Responses were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis (Objective 1) and inductive content analysis (Objective 2). RESULTS: Nine participants participated in the interviews: three peer support receivers, two peer support workers and four community partners. Three themes describe how working alliance is developed. First, 'feeling understood' explored the importance of validating experiences after TBI. Second, 'expanding conversations beyond injury' highlighted participants' desire to connect on similar life experiences and personal topics other than TBI, such as navigating milestones and life events. Last, 'reciprocal growth' identified how learning occurs between both the peer support receiver and worker. There were four main facilitators of forming a peer support network: characteristics of peer support workers, flexibility in content of sessions, collaboration between researchers and peer support organisations, and formatting of sessions. There were three main barriers to forming a peer support network: irregularity of sessions due to scheduling conflicts, lack of an established peer support program within acute care settings, and lack of resources including space, volunteers and funding. CONCLUSIONS: Findings reveal how working alliances between peer support workers and peer support receivers in TBI peer support are facilitated through validation of individual TBI recovery experiences, and mutual growth in the areas of self-acceptance and hope. Successful peer support networks appear to benefit from flexibility and individualisation of format and content of sessions, as well as the creation of collaborations between acute care and community support networks.
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 | 0,004 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 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 | 0,000 |
| 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 ».