LET’S TALK: AN EXPLORATION OF A TRANSDIAGNOSTIC PEER MENTORSHIP PROGRAM FOR ADOLESCENTS WITH INFLAMMATORY BOWEL DISEASE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is a chronic autoimmune disease often diagnosed during adolescence. IBD negatively impacts all aspects of health-related quality of life, resulting in physical, emotional, social, school, and work functioning challenges. Providing care to adolescents during the transition period from pediatric to adult care has been identified as a priority in healthcare. Specifically, adolescents have identified the need for peer support in managing their disease and promoting positive health outcomes. However, studies have yet to explore the peer support needs of this population. The primary aim of this thesis was to understand the lived experiences of adolescents participating in a peer mentoring program (iPeer2Peer) utilizing qualitative and quantitative methods. Fifty-nine adolescents from three tertiary hospitals in Canada, participated in the iPeer2Peer program as mentees. Twenty-four interviews were analyzed following a reflexive thematic analysis. The qualitative analysis focused on mentee program experiences through three overarching themes. The themes covered adolescent positive program experience (theme 1), barriers to engagement (theme 2), and solutions to increase program engagement and delivery (theme 3). Through these overarching themes, peer support for adolescents with IBD adds value to IBD care by developing a sense of belongingness with peers who share lived experiences. Participants completed questionnaire measures at baseline and post-program examining self-reported health-related quality of life (HRQL), self-efficacy, and emotional distress. Quantitative analyses suggest improvements in adolescent perceptions of HRQL from baseline to post-program. This thesis demonstrates the complexity of mentee experiences and presents the need to provide psychosocial support to adolescents with IBD. It contributes depth and novel ideas to the understanding of adolescent IBD experiences and the benefits of participating in a peer support program. However, future adaptations are needed to ensure optimal and appropriate care for this population. Clinical implications and future research opportunities are discussed.
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 | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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".