MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3013793233 · doi:10.1177/0733464820910939

The Impact of Peer Mentoring on Loneliness, Depression, and Social Engagement in Long-Term Care

2020· article· en· W3013793233 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Kristine A. Theurer, Robyn Stone, Melinda Suto, Virpi Timonen, Susan G. Brown, W. Ben Mortenson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Gerontology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicFamily and Patient Care in Intensive Care Units
Canadian institutionsResearch Institute for AgingUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Institute on AgingSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsLonelinessMentorshipSocial isolationDepression (economics)PsychologyGerontologyPerceptionQualitative researchSocial engagementMedicinePsychiatryMedical educationSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Loneliness, depression, and social isolation are common among people living in long-term care homes, despite the activities provided. We examined the impact of a new peer mentoring program called Java Mentorship on mentees’ loneliness, depression, and social engagement, and described their perceptions of the visits. We conducted a mixed-methods approach in 10 homes in Ontario, Canada, and enrolled residents as mentees ( n = 74). We used quantitative surveys and qualitative interviews to understand their experience. After 6 months, mentees ( n = 43) showed a 30% reduction in depression ( p = .02, d = .76), a 12% reduction in loneliness ( p = .02, d = .76), and a 60% increase in the number of monthly programs attended ( p = .01, d = .37), with small-to-medium effect sizes. The analysis of mentee’s interviews revealed positive perceptions. This program offers an innovative, nonpharmacological alternative to the treatment of loneliness and depression.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.185
Threshold uncertainty score0.376

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.118
GPT teacher head0.426
Teacher spread0.308 · 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

Citations19
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied GerontologySame topicFamily and Patient Care in Intensive Care UnitsFrench-language works237,207