Communication during goal-setting in brain injury rehabilitation: What helps and what hinders?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Setting goals with individuals with acquired brain injury may be challenging due to impairments in cognition and communication. The purpose of this study was to explore how occupational therapists' communication behaviours during goal-setting with individuals with traumatic brain injury facilitated and hindered this process. Method This exploratory study used a conversation analysis inspired approach and frequency calculations to analyse and interpret videotaped goal-setting sessions. Sequences of dialogue leading to, and distracting from, problem identification, a key step in goal-setting, were identified and analysed. Specific therapist behaviours that facilitated or hindered problem identification were subsequently distinguished. Results Acknowledgements and affirmations, open-ended questions about specific tasks and reflective listening, were found to lead to problem identification by the client (facilitators). Instances of disconnections were characterized by a single theme, ‘lack of uptake.' Examples of these hindrances to goal-setting included, abrupt topic shifts, lack of acknowlegement and failure to explore what the client said. Conclusion Clinicians should consider their language use during goal-setting interviews and aim to utilize conversational behaviours that are facilitative whilst minimizing those that distract to optimize their client's engagement during the problem identification phase of goal-setting.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".