A comparison of challenges faced by parents of children with ABI with and without access to third party funding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In Canada, allocation of rehabilitation services is often based on the assumption that families who have third party insurance funding are well served by the private sector system and are not in need of publicly funded rehabilitation services. However, there has been little research comparing the experiences of caregivers with and without access to third party insurance funding; data that could inform service planning and provision. METHOD: The current study compared the stresses, resources and psychological health of caregivers of children with Acquired Brain Injury (ABI) with and without third party funding. RESULTS: Caregivers with third party funding (MVA) reported a similar level of stress in comparison to caregivers without funding (non-MVA); however there were differences in what these families perceived as stressful. CONCLUSIONS: Although results indicated significant psychological distress and depressive symptoms for both groups, parents in both groups reported high availability of and satisfaction with services, although they used very few services. Implications for clinical services are discussed.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".