Social inclusion of persons with moderate head injuries: The points of view of adolescents with brain injuries, their parents and professionals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PRIMARY OBJECTIVE: This study explores the perceptions of adolescents, their parents and professionals as to the social inclusion of adolescents who have suffered a moderate traumatic brain injury (TBI). RESEARCH DESIGN: Exploratory descriptive qualitative study. METHODS AND PROCEDURES: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with three adolescents who had suffered a moderate TBI and with their parents. In addition, a focus group was conducted with four professionals. MAIN OUTCOMES AND RESULTS: The results show that the perceptions of adolescents, as well as their parents, affect different aspects of their lives, such as the adolescent's personal experiences, the family, friends, the environment and school. A great number of repercussions were indeed noted, which facilitate and sometimes limit the social inclusion of these adolescents. In general, the professionals shared the same perceptions, but added some ideas that did not come up in interviews with the adolescents and their parents. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study should enable health professionals to better understand the social inclusion experienced by these people. They should also provide professionals with guidelines on how to better support the social inclusion of adolescents with TBIs and help families cope with this difficult situation.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".