What Do We Know About One-to-One Peer Support for Adults With a Burn Injury? A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to conduct a broad examination of the central themes and concepts associated with one-to-one peer support for adult patients with a burn injury. The aim of the synthesis was to examine 1) what is reported in the literature regarding the impact of peer support for patients or peers and 2) what methods or elements were considered important with regard to the program design and structure. The synthesis undertaken for this study followed scoping review methodology. A systematic search of the literature was undertaken to identify articles of relevance. Four databases were searched: MEDLINE (medicine), Embase (medicine), PsychINFO (psychology), and SWAbstracts (social work). Information pertaining to program design and structure, recruitment and screening requirements, and perceived benefits and risks associated with peer support were extracted from the included articles. Nine key themes pertaining to program design and structure, and 10 key themes relating to the impact of peer support for patients or peers were identified and discussed. One-to-one peer support for adults with burns trauma has the potential to be a unique support option with earnest attributes. The preliminary data representing the effects of peer support for adults with a burn injury as presented in this literature review shows an emerging pattern of benefit for givers and receivers of peer support. Further work is needed in this field and recommendations are made for future studies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".