Family members facilitating community re-integration and return to productivity following traumatic brain injury – motivations, roles and challenges
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study explores the experiences of family members in supporting community re-integration and return to productive occupations of the traumatic brain injury (TBI) survivor in order to: (i) describe family members' supportive roles, (ii) determine challenges family members experience in supporting the TBI survivor; and (iii) identify supports that family members require to maintain and enhance their roles. METHODS: This qualitative descriptive study involved 14 interviews with immediate family members of TBI survivors. Data was analyzed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Family members expressed strong motivation and engaged in six key roles to support TBI survivors: researcher, case manager, advocate, coach, activities of daily living (ADL)/instrumental ADLs and emotional supporter. Personal and family stressors and challenges navigating the health care system were perceived as challenges in meeting demands of their supportive roles. Stigma also presented a barrier to successful community and vocational re-integration. Subsequently, family members desired more education related to the functional implications of TBI, to be connected to health care and community resources, and sought a greater family-centred care approach. CONCLUSIONS: Family members require on-going counseling and community supports to prevent burnout and allow for their continued engagement in their supportive roles. Further education on how to navigate the health care system, access community programs and rights to workplace accommodation is also warranted. IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATION: Family members are strongly motivated to support survivors' return to productive occupation following a traumatic brain injury, but require counseling and community support to enable their on-going engagement and prevent burnout. Family members can be further empowered through the implementation of family-centred care. Family members requested further education on the long-term functional implications of TBI, how to navigate the health care system, how to access community programs and workers' rights to workplace accommodations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".