MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

‘They Never Told Us Anything’: Postdischarge Instruction for Families of Persons with Brain Injuries

2001· article· en· W2063207137 on OpenAlexaff
Barbara Paterson, Barbara Kieloch, Judy Gmiterek

Bibliographic record

VenueRehabilitation Nursing · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRehabilitationMultidisciplinary approachDischarge planningHealth careHealth professionalsPerceptionFocus groupRecallMedicineNursingPsychologyMedical educationPhysical therapySociologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article reports on an analysis of why some families of survivors of traumatic brain injury (TBI) do not perceive that they were prepared for the postdischarge experience, despite discharge planning and teaching by rehabilitation hospital staff and third-party insurance adjusters. Findings are presented of a research study involving single interviews with seven families of survivors of TBI and interviews with four focus groups of healthcare professionals and third-party insurance adjusters who had cared, or were currently caring, for the injured person. Most family members did not recall being taught about what to expect or resources available to them. Healthcare professionals and insurance adjusters, however, stated that extensive discharge planning and multidisciplinary teaching conferences with patients and their families had been held before the patients were discharged. Reasons for such a discrepancy in perceptions are suggested. Implications of these findings for healthcare professionals who conduct discharge teaching in rehabilitation facilities are identified.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.033
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.033
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0150.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.314 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations60
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRehabilitation NursingSame topicTraumatic Brain Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207