Family functioning and emotional state two and five years after traumatic brain injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous studies have documented poor family functioning, anxiety, and depression in relatives of individuals with traumatic brain injury (TBI). However, few studies have examined family functioning over extended periods after injury. The present study aimed to investigate family functioning and relatives' emotional state 2 and 5 years following TBI, predictive factors, and their interrelationships. Participants were individuals with TBI and their relatives, with 301 seen at 2 years and 266 at 5 years post-injury. Measures included a Structured Outcome Questionnaire, Family Assessment Device (FAD), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, and the Craig Handicap Assessment and Reporting Technique. Results showed that while the group did not differ greatly in family functioning from a normative group, a significant proportion showed unhealthy functioning across most FAD subscales. Both TBI participants and their relatives showed elevated rates of anxiety and depression. There was little difference between family functioning or relatives' anxiety or depression levels at 2 and 5 years post-injury. Path analysis indicated that neurobehavioral changes in the injured individual have an impact on family functioning and distress in relatives even at 5 years post-injury. These findings indicate the need for long-term support of families with a brain-injured member.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".