MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W43151600

Adult Sibling Caregiving for Persons with Traumatic Brain Injury: Predictors of Affective and Instrumental Support

2008· article· en· W43151600 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Charles Edmund Degeneffe, Christyn M. Burcham

Notice bibliographique

RevueJournal of rehabilitation · 2008
Typearticle
Langueen
DomainePsychology
ThématiqueFamily and Disability Support Research
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésSiblingRehabilitationPsychologyMedicineDevelopmental psychologyClinical psychologyPhysical therapy
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

The sibling bond is unique among family relationships (Pruchno, Patrick, & Burant, 1996; Seltzer, 1989). Sibling relationships are ascribed and not subject to individual choice. With the exception of adoption, siblings automatically share common genetic, cultural, and environmental characteristics. Because sibling relationships originate from birth and continue until death, and may symbolically persist even after the death of one of the siblings, the sibling relationship can be longer than any other type of relationship. Families of persons with traumatic brain injury (TBI) Within families of persons with TBI, adult siblings often maintain a committed and supportive relationship with their injured brothers and sisters. For example, Gill and Wells (2000) surveyed the experiences of 8 adolescent and adult siblings (with an average age of 21 years) of persons with TBI in Ontario, Canada. Gill and Wells found the lives of the non-injured siblings were forever different as they were prepared to do whatever it took to maintain wellness in the family by meeting family responsibilities presented by their injured siblings' care needs. Parents, spouses/partners, children, and extended family also perform the caregiver role. Family caregiving is necessitated by the lack of public attention and service dollars available for community rehabilitation of persons with TBI. Kolakowsky-Hayner, Miner, and Kreutzer (2001) noted that the bulk of rehabilitation programming and funding support is primarily available during inpatient and acute-care rehabilitation. The care that families provide can be extensive including assistance with activities of daily living, advocacy, service coordination, medication monitoring, and cognitive rehabilitation (Degeneffe, 2001), as this disability can result in a variety of life-long cognitive, physical, and psychosocial impairments (National Institutes of Health [NIH], 1999). Caregiving for persons with TBI can be especially challenging for families due to the necessity of responding to common post-TBI challenges such as inappropriate sexual expression (Sachs, 1991), behavioral instability (Cunningham, Chan, Jones, Kamnetz, & Stoll, 2005), and chronic alcohol and drug abuse (Kreutzer, Witol, & Marwitz, 1996). Research commonly finds that family caregivers face elevated levels of stress and burden that typically do not decrease over time (Douglas & Spellacy, 1996; Kreutzer, Marwitz, & Kepler, 1992). This finding separates TBI caregiving from other areas of family caregiving, where stress and burden can actually decrease with time, such as for aging parents of people with mental retardation (Greenberg, Seltzer, & Greenley, 1993). Planning for the future is one of the many stressors families of persons with TBI encounter. families struggle with meeting the care needs of their injured family members without adequate resources, they wonder who will assume future caregiving responsibilities once parents, the typical primary family caregivers, are no longer able to perform this role. Orsillo, McCaffrey, and Fischer (1993) noted that siblings often assume they will face increased future caregiving responsibilities. It is common for siblings to recognize this possibility and experience feelings of concern. For example, Joseph Maurer (1991), a brother of an individual with a TBI stated, As his brother, and the one who perhaps understands him best of all, I begin, delicately, to shoulder the responsibility for Ed's later years--and all of the financial, legal, and medical details attached to that stewardship. It is a role siblings (and their parents) could use considerable help in addressing (pp. 31-32). Adult Siblings as Caregivers A number of studies (Harland & Cuskelly, 2000; Pruchno et al., 1996) of persons with other chronic conditions find that siblings assume future caregiving responsibilities that extend throughout the lifespan. …

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,118
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,310

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,027
Tête enseignante GPT0,341
Écart entre enseignants0,314 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations19
Publié2008
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJournal of rehabilitationMême sujetFamily and Disability Support ResearchTravaux en français237 207