Healthcare professionals’ perspective on the delivery of care to children with Acquired Brain Injury (ABI) and communication with their parents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to understand healthcare providers' perspective and responsivity to families' needs in rehabilitative care delivery for children with Acquired Brain Injury (ABI). METHODS: Three focus group sessions were conducted to explore and understand multidisciplinary healthcare professionals' (Hcps) perspectives about the care they deliver to parents of children with ABI. Convenience sampling was used to recruit healthcare providers (total sample size = 15) from a large rehabiliation centre of an urban setting in western Canada. Data was collected through semi-structured interviews and analysed thematically. RESULTS: Findings from this study revealed Hcps' perspectives on their day-to-day delivery of care and furthered our understanding of their challenges. It also increased our awareness about the rewards that Hcp gain as a result of their work. Five main themes emerged: (1) Getting back to normal; (2) Hsps' roles and perception; (3) Challenges in practices; (4) Practice rewards; (5) a focus on solutions/ideas for better healthcare delivery. CONCLUSION: Hcps' perspectives on their day-to-day delivery of care to families who have a child with ABI enhance our knowledge about the existing challenges and complexities. Findings from this study have significant implication for rehabilitation services in making rehabilitation goals more achievable for families of children with ABI.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".