Virtual Peer Mentoring for Adolescents With Congenital Heart Disease: A Mixed-Methods Study of the iPeer2Peer Program in the Transition to Adult Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Adolescents with congenital heart disease (AWCHD) experience various symptoms, which can restrict social interactions and negatively impact quality of life. iPeer2Peer is an evidence-based virtual peer mentorship program that has improved outcomes for youth in several chronic illness populations. This study sought to examine the feasibility and acceptability of delivering the iPeer2Peer program to AWCHD. Methods: A convergent, parallel mixed methods pre-post study design was used. AWCHD (13-18 years old) were recruited and matched with trained peer mentors (18-25 years old). Matched dyads completed up to 10 video calls over 15 weeks. Primary outcomes focused on engagement and acceptability (ie, accrual, withdrawal, number of calls, and qualitative feedback). Secondary outcomes focused on estimates of program effectiveness for this population (ie, transition readiness, quality of life, and self-efficacy). Results: Study results demonstrated a participant accrual rate of 25% (19 of 76) and an enrollment rate of 95% (18 of 19). Eighteen adolescents (mean age 16.5 years, 50% female) were enrolled with a range of CHD diagnoses. A total of 16 mentees completed the program, with 2 lost to follow-up. Adherence to the study protocol was strong, with 74% of mentees completing study measures at the end of the program (T2) and at 6 months after the program (T3). The average number of calls per pair was 7.25, and the average call length was 40.25 minutes. Transition readiness and self-management increased across program time points (with statistically significant improvement from baseline to 6-month follow-up) and aligned with qualitative results that illustrated the benefits of social support in the transition to adult care. Conclusions: This study demonstrated that the iPeer2Peer program was acceptable in this population. AWCHD were highly engaged and described the benefits of peer support during the transition process. Clinical programs may consider implementing similarly structured peer mentorship initiatives as a unique form of psychosocial support during the transition adult care.
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 | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".