Exploring the peer mentorship experiences of adults with spinal cord injury.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to understand the peer mentorship experiences of adults with spinal cord injury (SCI) through a self-determination theory (SDT) lens. Research Method/Design: Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with 13 adults with SCI who received mentorship (i.e., mentees) from fellow adults with SCI (i.e., mentors) as part of an existing provincial peer mentorship program. There were two analyses conducted in this study. The first was deductive, which involved organizing relevant data as per the three basic psychological needs of self-determination theory (i.e., autonomy, competence, and relatedness). The second analysis was inductive and focused on the participants' descriptions of their experiences. RESULTS: For the SDT analysis, and concerning autonomy, mentees expressed they were able to make their own decisions and their mentors' personalized their sessions. Specific to relatedness, the mentees discussed that their mentors cared and empathized with them, which helped them connect with their mentor. In terms of competence, mentees explained that their mentors provided verbal encouragement and helped them realize they were capable of successfully completing tasks. Some mentees also highlighted how the mentors did not listen to their needs, indicating need thwarting behaviors. For the inductive analysis, mentees expressed the importance of their SCI community organization, the impact of mentoring on their families, and the positive outcomes they associated with peer mentorship, such as participation in daily and social activities. CONCLUSION/IMPLICATIONS: The present findings extend our understanding of SCI peer mentorship from the perspective of the mentee and particularly from an SDT angle. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved).

Peer mentorship for adults with spinal cord injury: a static group comparison between mentees and non-mentees' reported coping strategies.

STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional study OBJECTIVES: Determine whether participating in peer mentorship is related to differences in reported use of coping strategies (acceptance of injury and fighting spirit) for adults with spinal cord injury. SETTING: Quebec, Canada METHODS: A static group comparison design was used to retrospectively compare mentees (n = 68) and non-mentees (n = 63) on their reported coping strategies. Moderation analyses examined differences on coping strategies, while controlling for years since injury (significant covariate). RESULTS: A significant interaction was found between years since injury and peer mentorship for acceptance of injury and fighting spirit, where mentees living with their injury for longer (~30 years) reported more use of the acceptance of injury and fighting spirit coping strategies. CONCLUSION: Peer mentorship programs could serve as a means for promoting positive coping strategies for adults with SCI. To better understand the role of peer mentorship, follow-up studies using more rigorous research methodologies such as cohort or randomized controlled trial study designs should be conducted.

Spinal Cord Injury Peer Mentorship: Applying Self-Determination Theory to Explain Quality of Life and Participation.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the role of spinal cord injury (SCI) peer mentorship on quality of life (QoL)/participation, and test a self-determination theory model that explains the role of SCI peer mentorship on these outcomes. DESIGN: A static group comparison design. SETTING: Community. PARTICIPANTS: A convenience sample of mentees (individuals receiving peer mentorship) (n=68) and nonmentees (n=63) who had an SCI, were older than 18 years, and spoke either English or French. INTERVENTIONS: Mentees: at least 4 peer mentorship sessions over the past 5 years; nonpeer mentees: 0 or 1 brief introductory session. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: QoL (ie, life satisfaction and positive and negative affect), participation (eg, autonomous indoor; family role), and the psychological needs of autonomy, competence, and relatedness. RESULTS: No group differences were found, but years since injury was a moderator indicating that, generally, peer mentees living with SCI for longer (∼30y) appear to benefit more from peer mentorship interactions compared with nonmentees and mentees living with SCI for approximately 6 years. Competence and relatedness mediated the peer mentorship-outcome relationship for QoL and some participation variables, indicating that peer mentorship predicted competence and relatedness, which in turn were related to the outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Satisfaction of competence and relatedness needs requires greater attention in SCI peer mentorship. Years since injury modified the relationship between peer mentorship and outcomes, which provided new insights on the role of SCI peer mentorship. Further studies are needed to determine SCI peer mentorship-specific outcomes that are important across the years-since-injury spectrum.