A pilot randomized controlled trial of the iPeer2Peer program in adolescents with sickle cell disease: A mixed method study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and objectives: Sickle cell disease (SCD) is hallmarked by recurrent episodes of severe acute pain and the risk for chronic pain. Remote peer support programs have been shown to effectively improve health outcomes for many chronic conditions. The objective of this study was to examine the feasibility and acceptability of an online peer mentoring program (iPeer2Peer program) for adolescents with SCD. Method: A waitlist pilot randomized controlled trial was conducted. Adolescents randomized to the intervention group were matched with trained peer mentors (19-25 years; successfully managing their SCD), consisting of up to 10 sessions of approximately 30-min video calls over a 15-week period. The control group received standard care. The primary outcomes were rates of accrual, withdrawal, and adherence to iP2P program/protocol, with secondary outcomes identifying topics of mentorship-mentee conversations through qualitative analysis. Results: Twenty-eight participants (14 intervention; 14 control) were randomized to the study (mean age: 14.8 ± 1.7 years; 57% female). Accrual rate was 80% (28/35) and withdrawal rate was 18% (5/28), with 28% (4/14) adhering to the iP2P program; however, 71% (10/14) of adolescents in the intervention completed at least one call. Based on content analysis of 75 mentor-mentee calls, three distinct content categories emerged: impact of SCD, self-management, transitioning to adulthood with SCD, and general topics. Conclusion: The results from this pilot study suggest that the current iteration of the iP2P SCD program lacks feasibility. Future research with the iP2P program can focus improved engagement via personalized mentoring, variable communication avenues, and an emphasis on gender.
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 | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".