Perceived needs and difficulties in meal preparation of people living with traumatic brain injury in a chronic phase: Supporting long‐term services and interventions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a chronic medical condition with life-long consequences. Meal preparation is one of the most significant activities impacted by TBI even after more than 10 years post-trauma. However, substantial gaps exist in our understanding of how exactly it is affected. This study examines the perceived needs and difficulties regarding meal preparation in individuals with severe TBI living in the community. This is done in an effort to justify long-term community-based interventions offered to the TBI population with regard to a task involving many safety issues. METHODS: The study used a descriptive qualitative design where five adults (28-50 years old) living with a severe TBI (9-37 years post-injury) were interviewed. Data analysis was completed using an inductive method. RESULTS: Participants living alone were all involved in meal preparation to diverse levels. Only two participants lived with a family member. Six categories of perceived needs were identified, of which two emerged as priorities: (i) Need for recipes to be compatible with cognitive abilities, knowledge and energy level to optimise motivation and (ii) Need to adapt complexity of grocery shopping to cognitive abilities and knowledge. The main difficulty expressed by participants was to manage their motivation to cook when tired, as it tends to diminish and fade when the person is exhausted. CONCLUSION: Many situations were considered difficult for our participants, which calls for adaptation of the tasks and of their environment. Considering these unmet needs in the interventions offered will help individualise follow-up and ultimately optimise the social integration of individuals living with severe TBI.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".