Examining the Efficacy of Communication Partner Training for Improving Communication Interactions and Outcomes for Individuals With Traumatic Brain Injury: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe the evidence regarding communication partner training (CPT) interventions for individuals with traumatic brain injury (TBI) and their conversation partners. DATA SOURCES: Eleven key databases-PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane Registry of Controlled Trials, Embase, Linguistic and Language Behavior Abstracts, ProQuest, Scopus, Web of Science, PsycBITE, SpeechBITE, and ERIC-were searched from inception through 2019. STUDY SELECTION: Selected articles had to be peer reviewed, written in English, experimental or quasiexperimental design, report on TBI communication partners, and describe interventions or strategies targeting communication partners. DATA EXTRACTION: Of 1088 articles identified, 12 studies were selected for data extraction, critical appraisal, and analysis with considerations of sex and gender. The Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine's guideline was used to critically appraise Levels of Evidence. Assessment of bias was conducted using the Cochrane Collaboration tools for randomized controlled trials and risk of bias in nonrandomized studies of interventions for nonrandomized controlled trials and the risk of bias in N-of-1 trials scale. DATA SYNTHESIS: A systematic review with a qualitative meta-analysis of themes and findings across the selected studies identified 3 major categories: (1) benefits of the training for those with TBI, (2) risks of CPT, and (3) suggestions to improve its efficacy. CONCLUSION: Most of the evidence comes from 1 research group, which may be viewed as a weakness in the current body of literature. However, although the evidence to date is modest, CPT may help to increase accessibility and reduce participation inequities in the community for individuals with 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 | 0.013 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".