Been There, Done That: The Experience of Acting as a Young Adult Mentor to Adolescents Living With Chronic Illness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To explore the perceived benefits and challenges of acting as a young adult peer mentor to adolescents with chronic illness. Methods: A qualitative descriptive study, using interviews and a focus group, explored the perceptions of young adult peer mentors following participation in the iPeer2Peer program, a Skype-based peer-mentorship program for adolescents with chronic illness. Interviews and focus group data were transcribed and analyzed using inductive content analysis. Results: Ten peer mentors (20.00 ± 1.49 years old, range 17-22 years; diagnosed with chronic pain [n = 4] or juvenile idiopathic arthritis [n = 6]) who mentored four mentees (±2.55 mentees, range = 1-10 mentees) participated. Four main categories were identified: social connection, personal growth, mentor role in mentee growth, and logistics of mentorship. Conclusions: Acting as a peer mentor online is a feasible and rewarding experience that supports the mentor's own illness self-management, social connection, and personal growth.
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 | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".