MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2727894746 · doi:10.1093/geroni/igx004.3081

IT HAS GIVEN ME A NEW LIFE: PEER MENTORING IN RESIDENTIAL CARE

2017· article· en· W2727894746 on OpenAlexaff
Kristine A. Theurer, S Brown, W. Ben Mortenson, Melinda Suto, Robyn Stone, Virpi Timonen

Bibliographic record

VenueInnovation in Aging · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes
Canadian institutionsGF Strong Rehabilitation CentreToronto Rehabilitation InstituteResearch Institute for AgingUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLonelinessMentorshipFocus groupPsychologyTransformative learningQualitative propertyQualitative researchNursingIntervention (counseling)Peer mentoringMedical educationMedicineSocial psychologyPedagogySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Most residents within residential care lack a sense of purpose. This has been associated with loneliness and depression, which are wide-spread across long-term care, assisted and retirement living. There is evidence that individuals engaged in peer support groups experience significant benefits, but this type of program is rare within these settings. To address this gap we developed an innovative peer support program called the Java Mentorship Program, in which volunteers, family and residents (mentors) form a supportive team, receive education and provide mentorship and visitation in pairs to residents (visitees) that are lonely or socially isolated. We conducted a mixed-methods pre-post study to explore the outcomes of and participants’ experiences with the introduction of this program in 10 residential care settings. Over a six-month period, qualitative data were collected using a combination of observations, individual interviews and staff focus groups and quantitative data were collected using standardized measures of sense of purpose, loneliness and depression. A total of 105 mentors, 86 visitees and 24 staff enrolled in this study. Qualitative analysis identified three themes: 1) “Mutually Beneficial” described how both mentors and visitees benefitted; 2) “Recruitment and Pairing Challenges” identified issues encountered by some staff; and, 3) “Transformative Team Meetings and Education” described the program’s positive impact on staff, mentors, and visitees. Preliminary results are promising. The quantitative data analysis underway will also be presented. Positive results will support further experimental research to determine if this intervention is efficacious at decreasing depression and loneliness and enhancing purpose within residential care.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.147
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.106
GPT teacher head0.438
Teacher spread0.332 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInnovation in AgingSame topicGeriatric Care and Nursing HomesFrench-language works237,207