Participation outcomes for children with acquired brain injury: A narrative review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To review the literature on participation outcomes used in children and adolescents with acquired brain injury (ABI) and to synthesize the available evidence on recovery trajectories in participation after ABI. METHOD: This study searched electronic databases (Medline, Cinahl, Embase and PsychInfo) from March 2011 back to the earliest available time (1966) using the following terms with brain injury (brain tumours excluded) and children: social or community or school and outcome assessment or participation. Retrieved articles were rated for methodological quality using Oxford Centre for Evidence Based Medicine criteria (CEBM). RESULTS: Sixteen articles were included for analysis. The methodological characteristics and quality of these studies varied considerably. Three studies used an explicit participation measure, nine studies featured an implicit participation measure and four used tailored participation measures. There is level 1c evidence that children and adolescents with ABI have participation restrictions at home, at school and in the community 18 months (SD = 14) after discharge. CONCLUSIONS: The available literature indicates that children and adolescents with ABI are at risk for participation restrictions. Research on recovery trajectories in participation after ABI in children is lacking. Longitudinal studies using explicit participation measures and higher quality research methodologies (quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods) are recommended.
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 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".