Enhancing peer support experience for patients discharged from acute psychiatric care: protocol for a randomised controlled pilot trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: This study will evaluate the effectiveness of an innovative peer support programme. The programme incorporates leadership training, mentorship, recognition and reward systems for peer support workers, and supportive/reminder text messaging for patients discharged from acute (hospital) care. We hypothesise that patients enrolled in the peer support system plus daily supportive/reminder text messages condition will achieve superior outcomes in comparison to other groups. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a prospective, rater-blinded, four-arm randomised controlled trial. 180 patients discharged from acute psychiatric care in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada will be randomised to one of four conditions: (1) enrolment in a peer support system; (2) enrolment in a peer support system plus automated daily supportive/reminder text messages; (3) enrolment in automated daily supportive/reminder text messages alone; or (4) treatment as usual follow-up care. Patients in each group will complete evaluation measures (eg, recovery, general symptomatology and functional outcomes) at baseline, 6 months and 12months. Patient service utilisation data and clinician-rated measures will also be used to gauge patient progress. Patient data will be analysed with descriptive statistics, repeated measures and correlational analyses. The peer support worker experience will be captured using qualitative methods. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study will be conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki (Hong Kong Amendment) and Good Clinical Practice (Canadian Guidelines). The study has received ethical clearance from the Health Ethics Research Board of the University of Alberta (Ref # Pro00078427) and operational approval from our regional health authority (AHS- (PRJ) #35293). All participants will provide informed consent prior to study inclusion. The results will be disseminated at several levels, including patients/peer supports, practitioners, academics/researchers, and healthcare organisations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03404882; Pre-results.
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 | 0.055 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.100 | 0.016 |
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".