The assessment of parent needs following paediatric traumatic brain injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paediatric version of the Family Needs Questionnaire was administered to parents of children with traumatic brain injuries (TBI) a year or more post-injury. Parents of diabetic children (DIAB) and parents of orthopaedically (ORTHO) injured children were included as control groups. Parents rated items on their importance and how well these needs have been met. The ORTHO group rated significantly fewer items as important relative to the TBI and DIAB groups (who endorsed a similar number of items). Of those items rated as important, TBI parents' needs were more likely to remain unmet relative to both the DIAB and the ORTHO groups: out of 28 items rated as important, TBI parents report that 19 needs are still unmet. DIAB and ORTHO parents more consistently reported their needs as met. Needs most often rated as unmet for TBI parents include the needs for health/medical information, professional support, community support networks, and the need to be involved in their child's care. These results present important findings for TBI rehabilitation professionals. Future studies need to investigate whether TBI parents' needs are unmet because of the lack of community resources, or if available resources do not adequately target the needs of the TBI parents.
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 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".