Brain injury · 2026
A feasibility study of a peer mentoring program for acquired brain injury.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Morris Richard P G, de Dios Perez Blanca, Thomas Shirley, Coulson Neil, Radford Kathryn
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Acquired brain injury (ABI) can lead to difficulties in activities of daily living and reduced participation. Few interventions have explored the treatment impact of peer mentoring for people with ABI. This study explored the feasibility and acceptability of a peer mentoring intervention (PAIRS).
METHODS: Mixed-methods feasibility study with post-intervention interviews. Feasibility was assessed regarding recruitment, retention, and intervention adherence. Acceptability was assessed through post-intervention interviews with mentors, mentees, carers, and healthcare professionals. Effectiveness was assessed using descriptive statistics on quality of life, mood, and goal attainment. Interviews were analyzed using the framework method.
RESULTS: Four mentor-mentee pairs completed an introductory meeting, and between one and six further meetings. Three carers and five healthcare providers were recruited. More resources, such as improved staffing levels, would have improved recruitment rates. Carers showed reductions in carer burden. Interviews showed that participants valued the social contact provided by mentoring and reported some benefits to quality of life and adaptations to the effects of brain injury. However, they experienced difficulties arranging meetings.
CONCLUSION: Peer mentoring was challenging and resource-intensive, suggesting a larger effectiveness study using the methods employed here is not feasible. Future studies should address matching procedures, implementation barriers, and consider alternative outcomes.
METHODS: Mixed-methods feasibility study with post-intervention interviews. Feasibility was assessed regarding recruitment, retention, and intervention adherence. Acceptability was assessed through post-intervention interviews with mentors, mentees, carers, and healthcare professionals. Effectiveness was assessed using descriptive statistics on quality of life, mood, and goal attainment. Interviews were analyzed using the framework method.
RESULTS: Four mentor-mentee pairs completed an introductory meeting, and between one and six further meetings. Three carers and five healthcare providers were recruited. More resources, such as improved staffing levels, would have improved recruitment rates. Carers showed reductions in carer burden. Interviews showed that participants valued the social contact provided by mentoring and reported some benefits to quality of life and adaptations to the effects of brain injury. However, they experienced difficulties arranging meetings.
CONCLUSION: Peer mentoring was challenging and resource-intensive, suggesting a larger effectiveness study using the methods employed here is not feasible. Future studies should address matching procedures, implementation barriers, and consider alternative outcomes.