Parental coping following childhood acquired brain injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PRIMARY OBJECTIVE: To examine parental coping following an acquired brain injury of their child, the relationship between maternal and paternal coping, and the extent to which social support and family environment affect parental coping. RESEARCH DESIGN: A cross-sectional design was used. METHODS AND PROCEDURES: Parents (n = 30) of children with acquired brain injury provided relevant demographic data and completed questionnaires investigating coping, social support and perceptions of family environment. MAIN OUTCOMES AND RESULTS: Perception-focused coping strategies were used most often by parents. Mothers had a more extensive repertoire than fathers, and the relationship between maternal and paternal coping appeared to be complementary. Relationships were found between emotion-focused coping and instrumental support (r = 0.39) and perception-focused coping and family cohesion (r = 0.37). CONCLUSIONS: Recognizing parental coping styles, enhancing the development of positive strategies, and underscoring the importance of social support and the family environment will assist parents to cope positively with their child's acquired brain injury.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".