Online Peer-to-Peer Mentoring Support for Youth with Hemophilia: Qualitative Needs Assessment (Preprint)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND To support adolescents through transition from pediatrics to adult care, health care providers and families help teens gain knowledge and develop self-management skills. Peer mentoring can provide meaningful support and has been associated with improved health outcomes in patients with other chronic conditions. Peer mentoring is an appealing way to provide support, but it is imperative to consider the unique needs of adolescents to ensure its success. OBJECTIVE The objective of our study was to identify the peer mentoring wants and needs of youth with hemophilia in order to guide the development of a new program. METHODS In this qualitative study, we interviewed a convenience sample of youth with hemophilia from 2 Canadian hemophilia treatment centers. Two iterative cycles of audiorecorded, semistructured individual interviews were conducted. Descriptive statistics and content analyses were used to organize data into categories that reflected emerging themes. RESULTS In total, we recruited 23 participants aged 12-20 years, with a mean age of 14.91 (2.57) years. When asked about program design, participants weighed the importance of flexibility in delivery (eg, Web-based, in person, text messaging [short message service]), content (eg, structured vs unstructured), frequency of sessions, and length of the program. Participants identified some potential challenges such as scheduling issues, comfort level for disease discussion, and discordant mentor-mentee personality types. The program was viewed as a positive medium for connecting peers with hemophilia. CONCLUSIONS Adolescents with hemophilia expressed interest in a peer mentoring program and provided valuable insight that will be applied in the development of a peer mentoring program for youth with hemophilia.
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 | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".