Development and preliminary evaluation of a structured family system intervention for adolescents with brain injury and their families
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PRIMARY OBJECTIVE: To develop and conduct a preliminary evaluation of a manualized family system intervention for adolescents with acquired brain injury (ABI). RESEARCH DESIGN: Descriptive/exploratory design using mixed methods: modified-Delphi technique, self-administered questionnaires and semi-structured interviews. METHODS AND PROCEDURES: Topic modules and content areas for the adolescent version (BIFI-A) were developed, building on topic areas from the empirically-based Brain Injury Family Intervention (BIFI) for adults. Eight adolescents with ABI, their families and three clinicians who implemented the BIFI-A participated in evaluation of the BIFI-A. Evaluation data were obtained from all participants at the end of each session and post-intervention. Content validity of the revised version was formally evaluated. MAIN OUTCOMES AND RESULTS: A seven-session curriculum, focusing on education, skill building and emotional support, was developed and tested. Clinical utility evaluation survey results indicated 81-89% mean agreement, with positive statements rating helpfulness, importance, relevance, and satisfaction with the BIFI-A. Ninety per cent of adolescent, family and clinician participants said they would recommend the intervention to families of adolescents with an ABI. Survey and qualitative findings from families and test clinicians were used to refine the BIFI-A into a 12-session curriculum. CONCLUSIONS: The findings provide evidence that BIFI-A is a promising family system intervention. Additional research is needed to determine its benefits.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".