Barriers and facilitators to implementing peer mentorship programs for individuals with spinal cord injury into rehabilitation hospitals: a multiple case study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To identify and compare barriers and facilitators to implementing a spinal cord injury (SCI) peer mentorship program at two rehabilitation hospitals. 24 participants from the two rehabilitation hospitals participated − 10 were from China and 14 were from Canada. Semi-structured interviews and focus groups were used to collect data. A cross-case analysis based on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research was conducted. At an individual level, four common facilitators for both hospitals were: <i>engaging patients with SCI</i>, <i>engaging health professionals</i>, <i>high-level leaders</i> providing financial and instrumental support, and increasing health professionals’ <i>motivation</i> to implement the program. Two common barriers were health professionals’ <i>low capability</i> and <i>opportunity</i> to implement the program. At an organizational level, one common facilitator was a <i>team culture</i> characterized by openness to innovation and a strong commitment to prioritizing patients’ needs. For the Canadian hospital, their <i>partnership and connections</i> with a community-based SCI organization and collaborative <i>work infrastructure</i> were facilitators. For the Chinese hospital, team separation within the local <i>work infrastructure</i> was a barrier. Multiple barriers and facilitators to implementing SCI peer mentorship programs were identified in two culturally distinct contexts. Assessing organizational needs and identifying available resources are key pre-implementation processes for rehabilitation hospitals to implement SCI peer mentorship programs. The in- and out-patient rehabilitation period is an ideal time to establish peer mentorship relationships for individuals with spinal cord injury.Implementation of peer mentorship programs in rehabilitation hospitals relies on interprofessional collaboration between high-level leaders, health professionals, and spinal cord injury mentors who can take on different roles in the implementation process.Identifying available resources, such as partnerships with community-based spinal cord injury organization and human resources to lead the efforts, will facilitate the imitation of the implementation process. The in- and out-patient rehabilitation period is an ideal time to establish peer mentorship relationships for individuals with spinal cord injury. Implementation of peer mentorship programs in rehabilitation hospitals relies on interprofessional collaboration between high-level leaders, health professionals, and spinal cord injury mentors who can take on different roles in the implementation process. Identifying available resources, such as partnerships with community-based spinal cord injury organization and human resources to lead the efforts, will facilitate the imitation of the implementation process.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it