The Participants’ Perspective on a Cognitive Rehabilitation Program Following Traumatic Brain Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Given the recommendations for evidence-based treatment practice, rehabilitation programs are typically evaluated using standardized objective measures of pre- and post-treatment performance. However, the potentially informative opinions and perspectives of the participants themselves are not reported. This paper sought to redress this imbalance by using a semi-structured telephone interview to gather feedback from 19 participants who had undergone a group-based eight-week cognitive rehabilitation program to improve attentional impairment following traumatic brain injury (TBI). The program incorporated cognitive training using an action video game and psycho-education, including a workbook for developing compensatory skills. Findings indicated that the majority of participants found the program to be a positive experience, resulting in self-perceived skill development that generalized beyond the training context. Participants particularly valued the social aspects of the rehabilitation program and reported benefiting from their interactions with the other group members. Most enjoyed the action video game playing, although for some, the opportunity to select between a set of different games rather than playing the single game that featured in the program would have been more appropriate. The majority of participants also found the workbook helpful. Other useful suggestions included extending the program to 10-12 weeks, increasing group size, developing more of a ‘take away’ aspect of the program to be administered at home, and formalizing the ‘mentoring’ roles that emerged in the group.
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 | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".