Abstract

Background: Peer mentoring is a vital resource for individuals with spinal cord injury (SCI), providing emotional support, practical advice, and guidance from others who share a similar lived experience (1,2,3). Additionally, peer mentoring is an important component of SCI rehabilitation and supports the role of the rehabilitation nurse in promoting effective self-management and independence after SCI. Research on the effect of community-based peer mentoring interventions' structure and processes on outcomes, as well as quality and effectiveness, is limited (4).

Aim: The primary aim of this study, informed by Donabedian's Model of quality assessment (5), was to describe the structure, processes, and outcomes of quality peer mentoring valued by the SCI community using an online survey as the first phase of a mixed methods sequential explanatory design.

Methods: Using a community-engaged research approach, a team of academic and SCI community partners developed a cross-sectional survey which was pretested with 10 community volunteers with SCI. The survey included questions in the domains of mentoring structure, processes, and outcomes, and was distributed online via REDCap. Participants were recruited nationally through social media, direct emails, and peer support networks, with a target sample size of 96. Inclusion criteria were adults over 18 with chronic paralysis due to SCI. Data collected included demographic information, injury profiles, experience with peer mentor or mentee role, and perspectives on peer mentoring.

Results: The final sample consisted of 99 participants with SCI with a mean age of 48.1 years. Related to structure, preferred roles for peer mentors included coach, advocate, and counselor. Priority characteristics for matching mentors and mentees included level of injury, personality, communication style, and age. Preferred processes of mentoring included 1:1 in-person and video chat interactions, with the mentor and mentee having autonomy over scheduling and topics discussed. Preferred outcomes included improved self-care management, independent living skills, and coping with emotional challenges.

Conclusions: The findings highlight characteristics of SCI peer mentoring programs that are prioritized by people with SCI and guide consideration of individual preferences and needs. Next steps in the research design will include in-depth qualitative interviews with SCI peer mentors and mentees to provide explanatory data related to survey findings.

Notes

References:

1. Barclay L, Hilton GM. A scoping review of peer-led interventions following spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord. 2019 Aug;57(8):626-635.

2. Rocchi MA, Shi Z, Shaw RB, McBride CB, Sweet SN. Identifying the outcomes of participating in peer mentorship for adults living with spinal cord injury: a qualitative meta-synthesis. Psychol Health. 2022 Apr;37(4):523-544.

3. Divanoglou A, Georgiou M. Perceived effectiveness and mechanisms of community peer-based programmes for Spinal Cord Injuries-a systematic review of qualitative findings. Spinal Cord. 2017 Mar;55(3):225-234.

4. Shaw RB, Lawrason SV, Todd KR, Martin Ginis KA. A scoping review of peer mentorship studies for people with disabilities: exploring interaction modality and frequency of interaction. Health Communication. 2021 Dec 6;36(14):1841-51.

5. Donabedian A. The quality of care: how can it be assessed?. JAMA. 1988 Sep 23;260(12):1743-8.

Description

Peer mentoring supports individuals with spinal cord injury (SCI) by offering emotional support, practical advice, and guidance. This study aimed to describe preferred peer mentoring characteristics from the SCI community’s perspective to inform future best practice guidelines. Using a cross-sectional survey pretested with 10 volunteers, data from 99 participants revealed preferred mentor roles, matching characteristics, mentoring processes, and outcomes.

Author Details

Susan D. Newman, PhD; Martina Mueller, PhD; MaryChris Pittman; Lindsey Elliott, MSW; Jonathan Sigworth, BA; Bill Cawley; Marka Danielle Rodgers

Sigma Membership

Gamma Omicron at-Large

Type

Poster

Format Type

Text-based Document

Study Design/Type

Cross-Sectional

Research Approach

Other

Keywords:

Mentoring and Coaching, Public and Community Health, Academic-clinical Partnership, Spinal Cord injury, Peer Mentoring

Conference Name

36th International Nursing Research Congress

Conference Host

Sigma Theta Tau International

Conference Location

Seattle, Washington, USA

Conference Year

2025

Rights Holder

All rights reserved by the author(s) and/or publisher(s) listed in this item record unless relinquished in whole or part by a rights notation or a Creative Commons License present in this item record.

Review Type

Abstract Review Only: Reviewed by Event Host

Acquisition

Proxy-submission

Click on the above link to access the poster.

Share

COinS
 

Structure, Processes & Outcomes of SCI Peer Mentoring: A Community-Engaged, Cross-Sectional Survey

Seattle, Washington, USA

Background: Peer mentoring is a vital resource for individuals with spinal cord injury (SCI), providing emotional support, practical advice, and guidance from others who share a similar lived experience (1,2,3). Additionally, peer mentoring is an important component of SCI rehabilitation and supports the role of the rehabilitation nurse in promoting effective self-management and independence after SCI. Research on the effect of community-based peer mentoring interventions' structure and processes on outcomes, as well as quality and effectiveness, is limited (4).

Aim: The primary aim of this study, informed by Donabedian's Model of quality assessment (5), was to describe the structure, processes, and outcomes of quality peer mentoring valued by the SCI community using an online survey as the first phase of a mixed methods sequential explanatory design.

Methods: Using a community-engaged research approach, a team of academic and SCI community partners developed a cross-sectional survey which was pretested with 10 community volunteers with SCI. The survey included questions in the domains of mentoring structure, processes, and outcomes, and was distributed online via REDCap. Participants were recruited nationally through social media, direct emails, and peer support networks, with a target sample size of 96. Inclusion criteria were adults over 18 with chronic paralysis due to SCI. Data collected included demographic information, injury profiles, experience with peer mentor or mentee role, and perspectives on peer mentoring.

Results: The final sample consisted of 99 participants with SCI with a mean age of 48.1 years. Related to structure, preferred roles for peer mentors included coach, advocate, and counselor. Priority characteristics for matching mentors and mentees included level of injury, personality, communication style, and age. Preferred processes of mentoring included 1:1 in-person and video chat interactions, with the mentor and mentee having autonomy over scheduling and topics discussed. Preferred outcomes included improved self-care management, independent living skills, and coping with emotional challenges.

Conclusions: The findings highlight characteristics of SCI peer mentoring programs that are prioritized by people with SCI and guide consideration of individual preferences and needs. Next steps in the research design will include in-depth qualitative interviews with SCI peer mentors and mentees to provide explanatory data related to survey findings.