Search

This study aimed to: (1) develop a coding manual to characterize topics discussed and conversation techniques used during peer mentorship conversations between people with spinal cord injury (SCI); (2) assess the reliability of the manual; and (3) apply the manual to characterize conversations. The study was conducted in partnership with three Canadian provincial SCI organizations. Twenty-five phone conversations between SCI peer mentors and mentees were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Ten transcripts were inductively analyzed to develop a coding manual identifying topics and techniques used during the conversations. Inductive technique codes were combined and deductively linked to motivational interviewing and behaviour change techniques. Two coders independently applied the coding manual to all transcripts. Code frequencies were calculated. The coding manual included 14 topics and 31 techniques. The most frequently coded topics were personal information, recreational programs, and chronic health services for mentors and mentees. The most frequently coded techniques were giving personal information, social smoothers, and closed question for mentors; and giving personal information, social smoothers, and sharing perspective for mentees. This research provides insights into topics and techniques used during real-world peer mentorship conversations. Findings may be valuable for understanding and improving SCI peer mentorship programs. SCI peer mentorship conversations address a wide range of rehabilitation topics ranging from acute care to living in the community. Identification of the topics discussed, and techniques used in SCI peer mentorship conversations can help to inform formalized efforts to train and educate acute and community-based rehabilitation professionals. Identifying commonly discussed topics in SCI peer mentorship conversation may help to ensure that peer mentors are equipped with the necessary knowledge and resources, or the development of those resources be prioritized. Developing a method to characterize the topics discussed and techniques used during SCI peer mentorship conversations may aid in designing methods to evaluate how rehabilitation professionals provide support to people with SCI. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To explore sexuality after spinal cord injury (SCI) from the perspectives of individuals with SCI and their romantic partners. A sample of 8 Canadian adults with SCI (6 men, 2 women) and their partners participated in this study (N = 16). Semi-structured dyadic and individual interviews were conducted, discussions surrounding sexuality and intimacy were extracted, and a qualitative description of the interview data was performed using thematic analysis. Three major themes were identified: the changing definition of sex; emotions; and practical support. Couples' conversations around the changing definition of sex after SCI addressed the taboo topic of sexuality and the importance of communication between couples, peers, and healthcare providers. Emotions included fears of losing intimacy, embarrassment in managing bladder and bowel interference, and acceptance in balancing being a romantic partner and a caregiver. Finally, couples reported challenges accessing practical support including medical interventions and sexual health nurses, but saw value in peer mentorship programs. Couples explored a changing definition of sex following SCI that was complicated by the taboo nature of discussing sexuality, experienced a range of emotions throughout the recovery process, and had difficulties navigating the healthcare system for appropriate support. Healthcare professionals should promote discussion and provide support for sexuality following SCI, but during initial rehabilitation may be too early. Healthcare providers should prepare people with SCI and their partners for the inevitable trial-and-error process involved in sexual rehabilitation. Rehabilitation professionals could direct couples to SCI peer mentorship programs to help normalize the experiences and emotions of sexual rehabilitation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To establish consensus regarding principles that should be used to guide spinal cord injury (SCI) research partnerships between researchers and research users. A three-round Delphi consensus exercise was carried out with researchers and/or research users involved in one or more SCI research partnerships. Participants considered a list of 125 partnership principles. In rounds 1 and 2, participants rated their agreement that a principle should guide SCI research partnerships on an 11-point Likert scale. After each round, principles that received a mean score of ≥8.0 or 70% of participants rated the principle ≥8.0 were retained. In round 3, participants categorized principles as essential, desirable, irrelevant, or unsure. At least 20 individuals participated in each round. In round 1, 103 principles met consensus criteria and eight principles were added. In round 2, 93 principles met the criteria. In round 3, 29 principles were categorized as essential and eight as desirable. Recommended principles focused on the interpersonal, relational, and logistical aspects of partnerships. Principles that did not reach consensus related to social justice and actionable impact. Findings provide insight into 37 principles that could be used to combat tokenism and inform future guidance to meaningfully engage partners in SCI research. Consensus-based research partnership principles (i.e., norms or beliefs) were identified and could be prioritized to help support spinal cord injury (SCI) researchers and research users combat tokenism and meaningfully engage research users as partners in the co-creation of knowledge. The resulting list of recommended research partnership principles was used to inform the development of guidance to support quality partnerships between SCI researchers and research users within and outside the rehabilitation context (). Guidance supporting meaningful research partnerships may accelerate the time between discovery and use of research in practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]