Computer-Mediated Communication in Adults With and Without Moderate-to-Severe Traumatic Brain Injury: Survey of Social Media Use
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Individuals with a history of traumatic brain injury (TBI) report fewer social contacts, less social participation, and more social isolation than noninjured peers. Cognitive-communication disabilities may prevent individuals with TBI from accessing the opportunities for social connection afforded by computer-mediated communication, as individuals with TBI report lower overall usage of social media than noninjured peers and substantial challenges with accessibility and usability. Although adaptations for individuals with motor and sensory impairments exist to support social media use, there have been no parallel advances to support individuals with cognitive disabilities, such as those exhibited by some people with TBI. In this study, we take a preliminary step in the development process by learning more about patterns of social media use in individuals with TBI as well as their input and priorities for developing social media adaptations. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to characterize how and why adults with TBI use social media and computer-mediated communication platforms, to evaluate changes in computer-mediated communication after brain injury, and to elicit suggestions from individuals with TBI to improve access to social media after injury. METHODS: We conducted a web-based survey of 53 individuals with a chronic history of moderate-to-severe TBI and a demographically matched group of 51 noninjured comparison peers. RESULTS: More than 90% of participants in both groups had an account on at least one computer-mediated communication platform, with Facebook and Facebook Messenger being the most popular platforms in both groups. Participants with and without a history of TBI reported that they use Facebook more passively than actively and reported that they most frequently maintain web-based relationships with close friends and family members. However, participants with TBI reported less frequently than noninjured comparison participants that they use synchronous videoconferencing platforms, are connected with acquaintances on the web, or use social media as a gateway for offline social connection (eg, to find events). Of the participants with TBI, 23% (12/53) reported a change in their patterns of social media use caused by brain injury and listed concerns about accessibility, safety, and usability as major barriers. CONCLUSIONS: Although individuals with TBI maintain social media accounts to the same extent as healthy comparisons, some may not use them in a way that promotes social connection. Thus, it is important to design social media adaptations that address the needs and priorities of individuals with TBI, so they can also reap the benefits of social connectedness offered by these platforms. By considering computer-mediated communication as part of individuals' broader social health, we may be able to increase web-based participation in a way that is meaningful, positive, and beneficial to broader social life.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,006 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».