Cited by 48Traumatic Brain Injury ResearchMental Health and Patient InvolvementMedical Practices and Rehabilitation

Evidence for peer support in rehabilitation for individuals with acquired brain injury: A systematic review.

Open access
Wobma, R, Nijland, R, Ket, J, Kwakkel, G·2016·Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the literature on evidence for the application of peer support in the rehabilitation of persons with acquired brain injury. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Embase.com, Ebsco/Cinahl, Ebsco/PsycInfo and Wiley/Cochrane Library were searched from inception up to 19 June 2015. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized controlled trials were included describing participants with acquired brain injury in a rehabilitation setting and peer supporters who were specifically assigned to this role. DATA EXTRACTION: Two independent reviewers assessed metho-dological quality using the PEDro scale. Cohen's kappa was calculated to assess agreement between the reviewers. DATA SYNTHESIS: Two randomized controlled trials could be included, both focussing on patients with traumatic brain injury. The randomized controlled trials included a total of 126 participants with traumatic brain injury and 62 care-givers and suggest a positive influence of peer support for traumatic brain injury survivors and their caregivers in areas of social support, coping, behavioural control and physical quality of life. CONCLUSION: The evidence for peer support is limited and restricted to traumatic brain injury. Randomized controlled trials on peer support for patients with other causes of acquired brain injury are lacking. It is important to gain more insight into the effects of peer support and the influence of patient and peer characteristics and the intervention protocol.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2340/16501977-2160

Cites

13 of 13 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Use of NMBA may reduce oxygen consumption by decreasing the work of breathing.

    “In addition, use of NMBA may reduce oxygen consumption by decreasing the work of breathing (464).”

    From Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2021. (2021) · cites this paper as [464]

    The Discussion describes a review of peer support in rehabilitation after acquired brain injury, and Study identification limits the included interventions to peer-support programmes. Searches for NMBA, oxygen consumption, work of breathing, and neuromuscular blockade found no passage addressing the claimed mechanism. The cited paper therefore cannot verify this claim; it does not make a contrary claim. (LLM, conf=0.77)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Peer support groups have been used to enhance recovery from illness with long-lasting disability but have only recently been used in critical care and sepsis.

    “Peer support groups have been used to enhance recovery from illness when survivors have long-lasting disability but have only recently been used in critical care and sepsis [549–551].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Struchen MA, Davis LC, Bogaards JA, Hudler-Hull T, Clark AN, Mazzei DM, et al. Making connections after brain injury: development and evaluation of a social peer-mentoring program for persons with traumatic brain injury. J Head Trauma Rehabil 2011; 26: 4-19.
  2. Stewart MJ, Doble S, Hart G, Langille L, MacPherson K. Peer visit support for family caregivers of seniors with stroke. Can J Nurs Res 1998; 1: 87-117.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wobma, R., Nijland, R., Ket, J., & Kwakkel, G.
Affiliations
Reade (NL)
Corresponding author
  • Wobma, R
  • Nijland, R
Venue
Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine
Published
2016
Volume
48
Issue
10
Pages
837-840
ISSN
1650-1977 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2541494160
Cited by
48
References
13
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1
FWCI
0.41
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Traumatic Brain Injury Research
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mental Health and Patient Involvement
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Medical Practices and Rehabilitation
Keywords
peer support, acquired brain injury, traumatic brain injury, rehabilitation, caregivers, social support, coping, quality of life, behavioral control
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Brain Injuries, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Peer Group, Quality of Life, Social Support, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review