Peer mentoring for people with acquired brain injury – a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Over 100 million people worldwide live with disabilities resulting from an acquired brain injury (ABI). ABI survivors experience cognitive and physical problems and require support to resume an active life. They can benefit from support from someone who has been through the same issues (i.e. peer mentor). This review investigated the effectiveness of peer mentoring for ABI survivors. METHOD: Eleven databases, two trial registers, and PROSPERO were searched for published studies. Two reviewers independently screened all titles, abstracts, and full texts, extracted data, and assessed quality. The PRISMA 2020 guidelines were followed to improve transparency in the reporting of the review. RESULTS: The search returned 4,094 results; 2,557 records remained after the removal of duplicates and 2,419 were excluded based on titles and abstracts. Of the remaining 138, 12 studies met the inclusion criteria. Five were conducted in the United States, three in Canada, three in the UK, and one in New Zealand. Meta-analysis was inappropriate due to the heterogeneity of study designs. Therefore, a narrative synthesis of the data was undertaken. CONCLUSION: Although peer mentoring has the potential to positively influence activity and participation among ABI survivors, further research is needed to understand the extent of the benefits.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".