An evaluation of the paediatric acquired brain injury community outreach programme (PABICOP)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PRIMARY OBJECTIVE: To examine the utility of a coordinated, family/community-focused programme (PABICOP) vs. a standard approach for improving outcomes for children with ABI and their families. RESEARCH DESIGN: Pre-test-post-test design, with comparison group and follow-up. METHODS AND PROCEDURES: Ninety-six children (64 children receiving PABICOP services and 32 children receiving standard care) participated in the study. Measures were completed at baseline and 3 and 12 months later. MAIN OUTCOMES AND RESULTS: Parents/caregivers with more than 10 contacts with PABICOP scored significantly higher on an ABI knowledge quiz than either parents/caregivers with 10 contacts or less or the comparison group at post-test and follow-up. Parents/caregivers with 10 contacts or less with PABICOP reported significantly greater improvements in children's school and total competence on the CBCL than either parents/caregivers with more than 10 contacts or the comparison group at post-test and follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: PABICOP may be more useful for enhancing knowledge of ABI for parents/caregivers and for integrating children into the community over a 1-year period than a standard approach. The amount of service received appears to influence outcomes.
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 | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".