A Scoping Review on the Long-Term Outcomes in Persons with Adult-Acquired Burn Injuries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adult-acquired burn injuries are a life-altering event that can lead to debilitating functional or psychological impairments. With advancements in health care resulting in decreased mortality rates, survivors of burn injuries can expect to live longer. This warrants a shift in focus to better understand what happens to adults once they are discharged from the hospital into the community. Therefore, the purpose of this scoping review was to map the literature regarding the long-term outcomes of community-dwelling adult-acquired burn survivors. A computer-assisted literature search was conducted on literature from January 1, 2000 to August 31, 2018 utilizing four large databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINHAL, and PsycINFO). Articles were included if they had a minimum of five individuals with a burn injury as a result of an accidental injury who were at least 18 years of age at the time of injury. Fifty-four articles were found suitable for inclusion in this review. The majority of studies were conducted in the United States and were longitudinal in design. Four themes were apparent from the articles: postburn complications, psychosocial outcomes, quality of life, and community participation. Data are lacking with respect to outcomes more than 5 years postburn as well as qualitative research. Furthermore, more literature is needed to understand the impact of postburn complications, coping strategies, and posttraumatic growth as well as barriers to community participation. Overall, there is an emerging body of literature that describes the long-term outcomes of adult-acquired burn survivors up to 5 years postburn.
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 | 0.009 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".