Identifying participation needs of people with acquired brain injury in the development of a collective community smart home
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study explored the personalized and collective participation needs of people with acquired brain injury (ABI) living in a future shared community smart home. METHODS: An action research study was conducted with 16 persons, seven with ABI, four caregivers and five rehabilitation or smart home healthcare providers. Twelve interviews and two focus groups were conducted, audiotaped, transcribed and analyzed for content. RESULTS: Seventy personalized and 18 collective participation needs were reported related to daily and social activities. Personalized needs concerned interpersonal relationships, general organization of activities, leisure, housing, fitness and nutrition. Collective needs related mainly to housing, general organization of activities and nutrition. CONCLUSIONS: Personalized and collective participation needs of people with ABI planning to live in a community smart home are diverse and concern daily as well as social activities. Implications for Rehabilitation To meet participation needs of people with ABI, the design of smart homes must consider all categories of daily and social activities. Considering personalized and collective needs allowed identifying exclusive examples of each. As some persons with ABI had difficulty identifying their needs as well as accepting their limitations and the assistance required, rehabilitation professionals must be involved in needs identification.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".