Assessing the impact of the iPeer2Peer program for adolescents with juvenile idiopathic arthritis: a mixed-methods randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis (JIA) is a chronic pediatric illness, whereby youth experience physical, emotional and psychosocial challenges that result in reduced health related quality of life (HRQL). Peer mentoring has been shown to improve disease self-management in adults with chronic conditions, with mixed results in younger populations. Building on our pilot work - which supported the feasibility and initial effectiveness of the iPeer2Peer program - the objective of this study was to assess the clinical effectiveness of the program in youth with JIA through a waitlist randomized controlled trial. METHODS: Eighty-one youth (aged 12-18) were randomized to the intervention group and matched with trained peer mentors (18-25 years; successfully managing their JIA), completing of up to ten 30-min video calls over a 15-week period. Eighty-three youth in the control group received standard care. Outcome assessments occurred at enrollment, 15 weeks post randomization and 6-months post randomization. The primary outcome was self-management, measured using the TRANSITION-Q. Secondary outcomes were HRQL, pain, emotional distress, disease knowledge, self-efficacy, and perceived social support. These were assessed using linear mixed effects models. Content analysis of semi-structured interviews and focus groups was used to assess satisfaction with the program with mentors and mentees upon study completion. RESULTS: In total, 164 youth (mean age 14.4 ± 1.9 years, 78% female) were randomized to the study. The proposed sample size was not reached due to challenges in recruitment, likely impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. The iPeer2Peer program did not show significant improvement in self-management (p = 0.7), or any of the secondary outcomes. Three key categories emerged from content analysis: (1) Fulfillment and Support Through Shared Experience, (2) Enhancing Program Delivery and (3) Strategies to Boost Engagement. These findings highlight that mentees valued the ability to converse with mentors who empathized with their disease experience, while mentors found it fulfilling to support mentees, and noted that they could have benefited from this type of support themselves. CONCLUSION: While the iPeer2Peer did not result insignificant changes in clinical outcomes, both mentors and mentees were satisfied with the program and felt that mentorship provided real-world benefits for disease management and overall wellbeing. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03116763. Registered 31, March 2017, https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov/study/NCT03116763.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".