Peer mentees' perceptions of the effect of peer mentorship on their participation in daily activities after spinal cord injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Peer mentorship has been reported to enhance participation in daily activities for adults with a spinal cord injury (SCI). However, researchers have rarely employed methods that allow these individuals to articulate how and why their peer mentorship experiences impacted their participation. The purpose of this qualitative study was to understand the peer mentorship experiences of adults with SCI. Thirteen adults with SCI who were peer mentored each participated in a semi-structured interview. Interviews lasted approximately 30 minutes, and the audio recordings were transcribed verbatim and stored using NVivo. The interview data were inductively analyzed following Braun and Clarke's (2013) guidelines for thematic analysis. Several themes (identified in parenthesis) related to their peer mentorship experiences emerged. Participants indicated that their peer mentors helped them gain access to important resources which helped them overcome obstacles to participation (instrumental support). They revealed that while peer mentors worked differently than other health professionals, both were important contributors to their overall well-being and participation (role of health professionals). Peer mentees also expressed that talking to their peer mentors helped them feel like they were not alone while undergoing rehabilitation and adjusting to life with a SCI (feeling connected). Interacting with their mentors also allowed mentees to gain a positive perspective on the possibility to participate in "normal" daily activities while living with a SCI (living a normal life). The results provide a preliminary understanding of the role of SCI peer mentors on participation.Acknowledgments: The Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) of Canada
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".