iPeer2Peer program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adolescents with chronic pain are often socially isolated, having never met others with chronic pain, and often feel misunderstood by healthy peers. Adolescence is a sensitive period for developing one's sense of self and autonomy, which often occurs in the context of peer relationships. This developmental process is disrupted in adolescents when their chronic pain interferes with their social interactions. Peer mentoring is proposed as a developmentally timely intervention. The aim of this study is to develop and test the feasibility, acceptability, and impact of the iPeer2Peer program. The iPeer2Peer program is a tailored peer mentorship program that provides modeling and reinforcement by peers (trained young adults with chronic pain aged 18-25 years who have learned to successfully manage their pain). This program aimed to enhance self-management of chronic pain in adolescents through 10 Skype video calls over the course of 8 weeks. A pilot randomized controlled trial design using waitlist controls was used in an adolescent chronic pain sample. Twenty-eight adolescents aged 14.8 ± 1.6 years (93% female) completed the trial (intervention: n = 12; control n = 16). Three adolescents completed the intervention after completing their participation in the control arm. The iPeer2Peer program was feasible and acceptable, provided the adolescents were given more time to complete all 10 calls. When compared with controls, adolescents who completed the iPeer2Peer program had significant improvement in self-management skills and their coping efforts were more successful. The iPeer2Peer program is a promising peer mentoring intervention that complements standard care for adolescents with chronic pain.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".