MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2277362025 · doi:10.14288/1.0054013

What is the meaning of recovery as lived by persons with traumatic brain injury?

2009· article· en· W2277362025 on OpenAlexaff
Philippa J. Lewington

Bibliographic record

VenuecIRcle (University of British Columbia) · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMeaning (existential)Traumatic brain injuryLived experiencePsychologyAcquired brain injuryCognitive psychologySocial psychologyMedicinePsychotherapistPsychiatryRehabilitationNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To understand the meaning of recovery from traumatic brain injury (TBI) this study sought the perspective of persons living the experience. Each participant was engaged as a co-researcher to make sense of this complex phenomenon. A multiple case study approach was used and seven adults volunteered to share their stories over two interviews. The study produced seven narrative accounts which were the joint product of focused conversation and an explicit, mutual goal. To address the influence of the interviewer, narratives were examined and validated by the participants and by an independent reviewer to ensure they were accurate and complete. Themes emerged through detailed and rigorous analysis of the interviews and narrative accounts. Adherence to protocol, reviews and consultation assured valid results. Themes were compared across accounts and a cyclical and dynamic pattern took form. It incorporated themes of trauma, deconstruction of a previous life story, reconstruction of a new life story and recovery. These themes were interwoven across four streams of life. One was an internal, deeply personal and emotional experience. Another involved external reactions to the events around the person. An interpersonal stream addressed relationships and an intrapersonal stream referred to sense of identity. The results of this study challenge structured stage models described in rehabilitation and brain injury literature. Rather than following clearly-defined steps, the co-researchers described turbulent spirals of trauma, destruction and renewal. Popular theory expounds acceptance and adjustment as a final stage in recovery. The results of this study suggested that the battle to attain such resolution is fought earlier in the story of recovery. Practical implications apply to treatment program design and to individual and group counselling with persons with TBI. The role of the counsellor is crucial to creating a more conjoint approach to treatment. Events which serve to deconstruct and/or reconstruct life stories can be understood collaboratively and constructively in the counselling relationship. The individuals in this study valued empathy, validation, comprehension and control within a treatment plan which maximized recovery potential by assisting them in defining and attaining personal, social and vocational goals.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.067

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0110.043
Scholarly communication0.0200.024
Open science0.0030.008
Research integrity0.0050.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.221 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuecIRcle (University of British Columbia)→Same topicTraumatic Brain Injury Research→French-language works237,207→