Barriers and facilitators to implementing peer mentorship programs for individuals with spinal cord injury into rehabilitation hospitals: a multiple case study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
To identify and compare barriers and facilitators to implementing a spinal cord injury (SCI) peer mentorship program at two rehabilitation hospitals. 24 participants from the two rehabilitation hospitals participated − 10 were from China and 14 were from Canada. Semi-structured interviews and focus groups were used to collect data. A cross-case analysis based on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research was conducted. At an individual level, four common facilitators for both hospitals were: engaging patients with SCI, engaging health professionals, high-level leaders providing financial and instrumental support, and increasing health professionals’ motivation to implement the program. Two common barriers were health professionals’ low capability and opportunity to implement the program. At an organizational level, one common facilitator was a team culture characterized by openness to innovation and a strong commitment to prioritizing patients’ needs. For the Canadian hospital, their partnership and connections with a community-based SCI organization and collaborative work infrastructure were facilitators. For the Chinese hospital, team separation within the local work infrastructure was a barrier. Multiple barriers and facilitators to implementing SCI peer mentorship programs were identified in two culturally distinct contexts. Assessing organizational needs and identifying available resources are key pre-implementation processes for rehabilitation hospitals to implement SCI peer mentorship programs. The in- and out-patient rehabilitation period is an ideal time to establish peer mentorship relationships for individuals with spinal cord injury.Implementation of peer mentorship programs in rehabilitation hospitals relies on interprofessional collaboration between high-level leaders, health professionals, and spinal cord injury mentors who can take on different roles in the implementation process.Identifying available resources, such as partnerships with community-based spinal cord injury organization and human resources to lead the efforts, will facilitate the imitation of the implementation process. The in- and out-patient rehabilitation period is an ideal time to establish peer mentorship relationships for individuals with spinal cord injury. Implementation of peer mentorship programs in rehabilitation hospitals relies on interprofessional collaboration between high-level leaders, health professionals, and spinal cord injury mentors who can take on different roles in the implementation process. Identifying available resources, such as partnerships with community-based spinal cord injury organization and human resources to lead the efforts, will facilitate the imitation of the implementation process.
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 | 0,012 | 0,024 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,010 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 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 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 ».