Long-term adjustment of families following traumatic brain injury where comprehensive rehabilitation has been provided
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The present study aimed to examine long-term family and emotional adjustment in close relatives of individuals with TBI, who had access to comprehensive rehabilitation services. It also examined the relative influence thereon of factors including injury severity, handicap and cognitive and behavioural changes in the injured person, relationship with the injured person and caregiver status. METHODS: Participants were 143 TBI individuals and their close relatives. They completed the Family Assessment Device (FAD), Leeds Scales of Anxiety and Depression, Structured Outcome Questionnaire, CHART, SIP Psychosocial Dimension and Novaco Anger Control Questionnaire 2-5 years post-injury. RESULTS: Results showed that families were, on average, functioning in the normal range on the FAD. Anxiety and depression were more likely to be present in those responsible for care of their injured relative. There were no differences between spouses and parents. Presence of cognitive, behavioural and emotional changes was the strongest predictor of anxiety and depression in relatives and of unhealthy family functioning. CONCLUSIONS: Every attempt should be made to develop models of long-term support and care that alleviate these sources of burden on relatives.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".