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

Shane N Sweet; Emilie Michalovic; Amy E Latimer-Cheung; Michelle Fortier; Luc Noreau; Walter Zelaya; Kathleen A Martin Ginis

doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2017.08.487

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

Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2018 Mar;99(3):468-476.e12. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2017.08.487. Epub 2017 Sep 22.

Authors

Shane N Sweet¹, Emilie Michalovic², Amy E Latimer-Cheung³, Michelle Fortier⁴, Luc Noreau⁵, Walter Zelaya⁶, Kathleen A Martin Ginis⁷

Affiliations

¹ Department of Kinesiology and Physical Education, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; Center for Interdisciplinary Research in Rehabilitation of Greater Montreal (CRIR), Montreal, Quebec, Canada. Electronic address: shane.sweet@mcgill.ca.
² Department of Kinesiology and Physical Education, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; Center for Interdisciplinary Research in Rehabilitation of Greater Montreal (CRIR), Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
³ School of Kinesiology and Health Studies, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.
⁴ School of Human Kinetics, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
⁵ Université Laval, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada; Center for Interdisciplinary Research in Rehabilitation and Social Integration (CIRRIS), Quebec City, Quebec, Canada.
⁶ Moelle Épinière et Motricité Québec, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
⁷ School of Health and Exercise Sciences, University of British Columbia Okanagan, Kelowna, British Columbia, Canada.

PMID: 28947164
DOI: 10.1016/j.apmr.2017.08.487

Abstract

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.

Keywords: Mentors; Psychological theory; Quality of life; Rehabilitation; Social participation; Spinal cord injuries.

Publication types

Comparative Study
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

Adult
Cross-Sectional Studies
Female
Humans
Male
Mentoring / methods*
Mentors / psychology
Middle Aged
Patient Participation / psychology*
Peer Group*
Personal Autonomy*
Personal Satisfaction
Quality of Life / psychology*
Spinal Cord Injuries / psychology*