Feasibility of a Community-Based, Online, Peer-Supported Spinal Cord Injury Self-management Intervention: Protocol for a Pilot Wait-Listed Randomized Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: People with spinal cord injury (SCI) report feeling unprepared to manage their disability upon discharge to the community. This situation is exacerbated when they return to settings where self-management support and resources are sparse, thus increasing the risk of costly secondary conditions and rehospitalizations. These factors make a compelling case for implementing innovative community-based SCI self-management programs that empower and engage individuals with SCI. Using a community-engaged research (CEnR) approach, we developed a peer-supported SCI self-management intervention, known as PHOENIX (Peer-supported Health Outreach, Education, and Information Exchange), which integrates online educational content and support from peer navigators (PNs) through telehealth, to promote health and community participation after SCI. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this pilot study is to evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of PHOENIX and the study design, and to obtain estimates of the variability of relevant outcome measures. METHODS: We conducted a pilot randomized waitlist-controlled trial (n=30) in collaboration with the South Carolina Spinal Cord Injury Association (SCSCIA), our long-standing community-based nonprofit organization research partner. We recruited 4 PNs through our SCSCIA collaboration using its existing network of trained peer mentors. Our study design supported comparison of the following 2 randomly assigned groups: PHOENIX intervention group and waitlist enhanced usual care (EUC) group. The PHOENIX intervention was administered online by PNs over 16 weeks through scheduled "video visits." The EUC group participated in the study for 16 weeks with usual community services and no navigation, and received 4 monthly newsletters from the SCSCIA on a variety of SCI-relevant topics. At the end of the waitlist period, the waitlist EUC group received the full PHOENIX intervention. Measures of feasibility included PN and participant recruitment and retention, PN workload, protocol adherence, and incidence of technical issues. We conducted qualitative interviews with participants and PNs to evaluate the acceptability of PHOENIX and the study design. Outcome measures, including community participation, quality of life, and the occurrence and subjective impact of medically serious secondary conditions and rehospitalizations, were assessed at baseline after randomization and at subsequent time points to allow between-group comparisons. RESULTS: PN hiring and training were completed in August 2018. Recruitment began in November 2018. A total of 30 participants were recruited across South Carolina, and 28 participants completed follow-up by August 2020. An analysis of the results is being finalized, and the results are expected to be published in 2023. CONCLUSIONS: This study will provide valuable information to guide future research seeking to address unmet self-management needs and improve outcomes in individuals with SCI. Feasibility findings of this study will provide evidence from CEnR guided by people with SCI and SCI service providers to inform further development, testing, and dissemination of effective and scalable self-management strategies for people with SCI. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR1-10.2196/42688.
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 | 0.044 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.065 | 0.015 |
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".