Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31123333›Full record

ArticleSpinal cord2019

A scoping review of peer-led interventions following spinal cord injury.

Linda Barclay, Gillean Mary Hilton

Abstract readScoping Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Spinal cord, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

29 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Peer-supported interventions for people with spinal cord injury.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. SCI Thrive: Impact of a peer-led online self-management program.The journal of spinal cord medicine · 2024
    Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Lack of Sample Diversity in Research on Adolescent Depression and Social Media Use: A Scoping Review and Meta-Analysis.Clinical psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science · 2023
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Linda BarclayDepartment of Occupational Therapy, Monash University, 47-49 Moorooduc Highway, Frankston, 3199, VIC, Australia. linda.barclay2@monash.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9979-2201
Gillean Mary HiltonDepartment of Occupational Therapy, Monash University, 47-49 Moorooduc Highway, Frankston, 3199, VIC, Australia.

Funding

Transport Accident Commission (TAC) N/A
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

STUDY

designScoping review.

objectivesThe objective of this study is to report on the extent, range and nature of the research evaluating peer-led interventions following spinal cord injury, and to categorize and report information according to study design, peer role, intervention type and intended outcomes.

methodsArksey and O'Malley's methodological framework for conducting scoping reviews was used. Original research studies of a peer-led intervention published between 2010 and present were included. CINAHL Plus, Ovid MEDLINE and PsycINFO were searched using key terms, in addition to citation checks. Data were extracted against a previously published consolidated typology.

resultsSignificant heterogeneity in studies (n = 21) existed in aims and methods. Two studies reported on randomized controlled trials with relatively robust sample sizes and qualitative methodology was common. Peer role was frequently described as 'peer support', but there was variation in the description and duration of the interventions, complicating the categorization process. The majority of interventions were conducted one to one (n = 15). Studies most commonly aimed to address community integration (n = 15) and health self-management outcomes (n = 10).

conclusionsA small number of studies were eligible for review, although increasingly with rigorous designs. The nature of the peer mentor and mentee experiences were explored, and the interaction between the two, offering rich insights to the value of lived experience. Further work refining typology describing intervention type, peer roles and outcomes would facilitate replication of programmes and study designs, enabling statistical synthesis and potentially strengthening the credibility of peers as a viable resource in in-patient and community settings.

Indexed as

Peer GroupCounselingEarly Medical InterventionHumansSpinal Cord Injuries

Identifiers

PMID31123333

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.