Experiences of care: Perspectives of carers of adults with traumatic brain injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper describes the results of a survey that explored the experiences of carers when accessing rehabilitative services alongside their family member with a moderate-severe TBI. The 184 carers who completed these surveys reflected retrospectively on the care they received. The results of this study indicated that 61% of the carer respondents recollected accessing inpatient rehabilitation following their acute care. However, following inpatient discharge only 33% of carers reported receiving ongoing services. One quarter of carers stated they received inadequate information while transitioning through their healthcare journey and fewer than 20% of carers recollected receiving any formal support service. The results of this study showed that as carers transitioned through the healthcare journey with their family member with TBI, health services progressively declined. As this occurred, carers' satisfaction with services reduced, while their responsibilities for caring increased. This trend is concerning given the needs of carers have been shown to change over time and increase if not addressed. This paper describes both carer experience following TBI in Australia and encourages clinicians to advocate for carers needs when planning and providing rehabilitation services.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".