MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2589696396 · doi:10.1080/09638288.2017.1288274

Misconceptions about traumatic brain injury among probation services

2017· article· en· W2589696396 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Conall O’Rourke, Mark Linden, Maria Lohan

Bibliographic record

VenueDisability and Rehabilitation · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersQueen's UniversityQueen's University BelfastDepartment of Education and Learning, Northern Ireland
KeywordsTraumatic brain injuryRehabilitationPopulationInjury preventionMedicinePsychologyService memberClinical psychologyOccupational safety and healthPoison controlPsychiatryPhysical therapyMedical emergencyEnvironmental healthMilitary personnel

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: The prevalence of traumatic brain injury (TBI) among offender populations is significantly higher than among the general population. Despite this, no study has yet assessed the knowledge of members of the probation service surrounding TBI. METHOD: Knowledge was assessed among members of the Probation Board for Northern Ireland (PBNI) using a cross-sectional online version of the Common Misconceptions about TBI (CM-TBI) questionnaire. Mean total misconception scores, along with scores on four subdomains (recovery, sequelae, insight, and hidden injury) were calculated. Analysis of variance was used to explore differences in misconceptions based on the collected demographic information. RESULTS: The overall mean percentage of misconceptions for the group was 22.37%. The subdomain with the highest rate of misconceptions (38.21%) was insight into injury which covered misconceptions around offenders' self-awareness of injuries. Those who knew someone with a brain injury scored significantly higher in the CM-TBI total score, F(1,63) = 6.639, p = 0.012, the recovery subdomain, F(1,63) = 10.080, p = 0.002, and the insight subdomain, F(1,63) = 5.834, p = 0.019. Additionally, significant training deficits around TBI were observed among the probation service. CONCLUSIONS: This study is the first of its kind to examine the level of understanding around TBI within probation services. The findings reflect potential barriers to identification and rehabilitation of TBI for offenders coming into contact with the criminal justice system. A lack of identification coupled with misconceptions about TBI could lead to inaccurate court reporting with a subsequent impact on sentencing. Implications for Rehabilitation Despite being one of the first points of contact for offenders entering the criminal justice system, members of the probation service reported having no formal training on traumatic brain injury (TBI). The subdomain with the highest rate of misconceptions (insight into injury) revealed an over-reliance on survivors of brain injury to identify, understand, and communicate the extent and severity of their injuries. Probation service personnel require training on TBI to improve awareness of the potential outcomes of the condition, ensuring injuries are identified and referred to the appropriate care pathways.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.334 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations27
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDisability and RehabilitationSame topicTraumatic Brain Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207