A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 197

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3165
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once

The spinal cord injury (SCI) peer support evaluation tool: the development of a tool to assess outcomes of peer support programs within SCI community-based organizations. | LitMetric

Category Ranking

98%

Total Visits

921

Avg Visit Duration

2 minutes

Citations

20

Article Abstract

Study Design: Guided by the 4-step process outlined in the Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) guideline, multiple methodologies were used: Delphi, literature reviews, ratings with consensus, think-aloud, and test-retest.

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to develop and test a spinal cord injury (SCI) peer support evaluation tool that meets the needs of community-based SCI organizations in Canada.

Setting: Peer support programs for people with SCI delivered by community-based SCI organizations.

Methods: This research was co-constructed with executives and staff from SCI community-based organizations, people with SCI, researchers, and students. Given the multiple steps of this study, sample size and characteristics varied based on each step. Participants included people with SCI who received peer support (mentees) or provided peer support (mentors/supporters) and staff of community-based organizations.

Results: In step 1, the 20 most important outcomes for SCI peer support were identified. In step 2 and 3, the 97 items were identified to assess the outcomes and by using rating and multiple consensus methodologies 20 items, one to assess each outcome, were selected. In step 4, content and face validity and test-retest reliability were achieved. The resulting SCI Peer Support Evaluation Tool consists of 20 single-item questions to assess 20 outcomes of SCI peer support.

Conclusion: Through a systematic process, the SCI Peer Support Evaluation Tool is now ready to be implemented to assess outcomes of SCI peer support programs delivered by community-based SCI organizations.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11621013PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41393-024-01033-1DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

peer support
40
sci peer
28
support evaluation
16
evaluation tool
16
assess outcomes
16
sci
15
support programs
12
community-based sci
12
people sci
12
outcomes sci
12

Similar Publications