Volunteer Work and Psychological Health Following Traumatic Brain Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare the long-term psychological functioning of 3 groups of survivors of traumatic brain injury (TBI): (1) those who report being regularly active either by working or studying, (2) those who are not competitively employed but are active volunteers, and (3) those who report neither working, studying, nor volunteering. PARTICIPANTS AND PROCEDURE: Two hundred eight participants aged 16 years and older with minor to severe TBI were classified as (1) Working/Studying (N = 78), (2) Volunteering (N = 54), or (3) Nonactive (N = 76). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Measures of psychological distress (anxiety, depression, cognitive disturbance, irritability/anger), fatigue, sleep disturbance, and perception of pain. RESULTS: Survivors of TBI who report being active through work, studies, or volunteering demonstrate a significantly higher level of psychological adjustment than persons who report no activity. Even among participants who are unable to return to work and are declared on long-term disability leave, those who report engaging in volunteer activities present significantly better psychological functioning than participants who are nonactive. CONCLUSION: Volunteering is associated with enhanced psychological well-being and should be encouraged following TBI.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".