The experiences of family members of brain injured individuals in the early phase after the injury : an exploratory multiple case study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Traumatic brain injury affects thousands of individuals and their families each year. The importance of the involvement of family members in rehabilitation in order to maximize the injured person's functioning has long been recognized. However, the importance of support and counselling for the family members has only become more apparent in the past 10 to 15 years. Initial research on brain injury and the family was concerned with identifying the burden on the family and factors related to their stress. Researchers also have attempted to develop questionnaires to assess families' needs. Recent research is beginning to look at the adjustment and adaptation process to brain injury by family members. Most research on the effects of brain injury on the family has been quantitative in nature and some limits exist due to small sample sizes, insufficient assessment, and lack of evidence of reliability and validity of questionnaires. Two significant gaps remain: the lack of information on family members' experiences, reactions, and needs in the initial phase after the injury (the first few weeks), and the lack of qualitative research in this area that would allow families to express and describe their own experiences. This study explores the experiences of family members of individuals with severe traumatic brain injuries during the patients' stay in acute care from their personal perspective.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".