Peer support for traumatic injury survivors: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Peers are uniquely able to draw on their lived experiences to support trauma survivors’ recovery. By understanding the functions and outcomes of peer support and the factors that impact implementation, evidence can be mobilized to enhance its application and uptake into standard practice. As such, we aimed to review the literature on peer support for trauma survivors to: examine the role of peer support in recovery; describe the nature and extent of peer support; Examine the influence of peer support on health and well-being; and identify the barriers and facilitators to developing and implementing peer support. Scoping review methodology as outlined by Arksey and O’Malley. Ninety-three articles were reviewed. Peer support was highlighted as an important component of care for trauma survivors and provided hope and guidance for the future post-injury. Most peer support programs were offered in the community and provided one-on-one support from peer mentors using various modalities. Interventions were successful when they involved knowledgeable peer mentors and maintained participant engagement. Prior negative experiences and stigma/privacy concerns deterred trauma survivors from participating. Peer support fulfills several functions throughout trauma survivors’ recovery that may not otherwise be met within existing health care systems. Implications for rehabilitationBy understanding the functions and outcomes and the factors that impact implementation of peer support, evidence can be mobilized to enhance its application and uptake into standard practice.Peers provide trauma survivors with socioemotional support as well as assistance in daily management and life navigation post-injury.Peer support provided hope and guidance for the future after injury and improved self-efficacy amongst trauma survivors.Peer support programs are most likely to be successful when they involve knowledgeable peer mentors, are flexibly delivered, align with organizations’ values and priorities, and have adequate resources and funding to support their implementation. By understanding the functions and outcomes and the factors that impact implementation of peer support, evidence can be mobilized to enhance its application and uptake into standard practice. Peers provide trauma survivors with socioemotional support as well as assistance in daily management and life navigation post-injury. Peer support provided hope and guidance for the future after injury and improved self-efficacy amongst trauma survivors. Peer support programs are most likely to be successful when they involve knowledgeable peer mentors, are flexibly delivered, align with organizations’ values and priorities, and have adequate resources and funding to support their implementation.
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 | 0.015 | 0.061 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.021 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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; 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".