Implementation Evaluation of an Online Peer-Mentor Training Program for Individuals With Spinal Cord Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Community-based spinal cord injury (SCI) associations play a critical role in successful community integration of individuals having experienced an SCI, with knowledge translation being increasingly important for the process. The implementation of a new online peer-mentor training program was perceived as being useful in improving and standardizing training practices for peer mentors across Canada. It was also seen as an opportunity to explore the context, process, and influence of a formal implementation process in SCI community-based associations that are corporate members of SCI Canada with a view to informing future implementation efforts. Objectives: The objectives of this study were to (a) explore the context in which the implementation process will be conducted, (b) identify barriers and facilitators that influence the implementation process, and (c) measure the influence of the implementation process on service delivery. Methods: A sequential cross-sectional design was used with SCI Canada provincial member associations. SCI Canada's purpose is to support collaboration among provincial corporate members. SCI Canada enlisted the participation of several employees from the provincial associations to assess the implementation context using the Evidence-Based Practice Attitude Scale and the Organizational Readiness to Change Assessmen t and to identify barriers to and facilitators of the implementation of an evidence-based practice through an open-ended questionnaire based on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. A pre-post design was used to evaluate the influence of the implementation process on peer-mentors using the Determinants of Implementation Behavior Questionnaire. Results: Participants reported an overall positive attitude toward evidence-based practice and a positive perception of the organizational readiness to change. The relevance of the practice chosen was a facilitator because peer support is central to the mission of SCI Canada and this type of practice is in line with the organization' culture and values. Equally important, but as an obstacle, is the scarcity of existing resources within the association in general and specifically resources devoted to the implementation of the program. Finally, the implementation process seems to influence half of the implementation determinant types on potential peer mentors. Conclusion: Community-based organizations, such as the provincial association members of SCI Canada, show positive context for the implementation of evidence-based practices. However, successful implementation of online peer-mentor training will require specific consideration of financial and human resources.
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 | 0.009 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".