Managing cognitive difficulties after traumatic brain injury: a review of online resources for families
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To identify and critically appraise the content, readability, reliability and usability of websites providing information for managing cognitive difficulties in everyday life for the families of adults with moderate to severe traumatic brain injury.Method: Systematic searches on the Internet for relevant websites were conducted using five search engines, and through consultation of the lists of resources published on websites of traumatic brain injury organizations. Two team members assessed eligibility of the websites. To be included, they had to provide information related to management of cognitive difficulties following moderate to severe traumatic brain injury, to be in English or French and available free of charge. Two reviewers evaluated each website according to: (1) its readability using Flesch–Kincaid Grade Level; (2) the quality of its content using a checklist of eight recommendations for managing memory, attention and executive function problems; (3) its usability (e.g., clear design) and reliability (e.g., currency of information) using the Minervation Validation Instrument for Health Care Web Sites.Results: Of the 38 websites included, 10 provide specific tips for families that cover several domains of cognitive function, including memory, attention and executive function. The most frequent recommendations focused on the use of environmental supports for memory problems (n = 33 websites). The readability of information is below the recommended grade 7 for only nine of the websites. All sites show acceptable usability, but their quality is variable in terms of reliability of the information.Conclusions: This review provides useful information for selecting online resources to educate families about the management of cognitive difficulties following moderate to severe traumatic brain injury, as a complement to information and training provided by the rehabilitation team.Implications for rehabilitationThis review describes standardized criteria for the evaluation of the content, readability, reliability and usability of websites for family education post-TBI.Given the variability in the content, the readability and the reliability of websites providing information for families about the management of cognitive difficulties post-TBI, careful attention to the selection of appropriate resources is required.Findings from this review may facilitate clinicians’ identification of relevant websites to educate families about the management of cognitive difficulties post-TBI, as a complement to other information and training from the rehabilitation team.
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 | 0.008 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".