Informing behavioural interventions for family support providers of people with spinal cord injury: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Being a family support provider to someone with an SCI may negatively impact one's ability to engage in a range of health-promoting behaviours such as physical activity, self-care, or socializing. However, few interventions exist to promote health-promoting behaviours in this population. Objective: To conduct a scoping review to identify the components necessary to develop behavioural interventions for family support providers from peer-reviewed literature using the behaviour change wheel (BCW). Methods: Electronic databases were searched in May 2017 and articles relating to family support providers of people with SCI were identified. Necessary data for intervention development outlined by the BCW were extracted from these articles, including behaviours, behavioural determinants, intervention content, and evaluation methods. Results: Data was extracted from 59 articles. The most commonly identified behaviours included engaging in leisure time/daily activities (e.g., physical activity, self-care), problem-solving, and providing support. Individuals' physical and social environments most often influenced these behaviours. Barriers varied between behaviours and contexts. Only six interventions were identified, none were based on behaviour change theory, and all were based on the technique of problem-solving. Conclusion: This scoping review was the first to review the SCI family support provider literature through a behaviour change theory lens. The results of this study suggest that a promising intervention approach may be to use a theory which promotes change in support providers' contexts while encouraging behavioural strategies to overcome individual barriers. Future research should consider a theory-based approach to intervention design to examine additional intervention methods which may be effective.
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 | 0.023 | 0.082 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".