Families’ Experiences Living with Acquired Brain Injury: “Thinking Family”—A Nursing Pathway for Family-Centered Care
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to examine families’ experiences living with acquired brain injury (ABI) using a research approach that included both the affected individual family member and the family together as a family group. A narrative inquiry study, informed by the life-stage approach of Lieblich, Tuval-Mashiach, and Zilber, was used to obtain family stories. Families experiencing an ABI event were purposefully selected from different regions in a western Canadian province. Centered on the life stages of before the ABI event, now living with the ABI, and the future, thematic findings included: Families, a grounding force; Losses, individual and family; Family adaptive capacities; Experiences with the healthcare system-hospital to home; and A patchwork future-entering the unknown. Themes affirmed the significant impacts of ABI on individual and family members and acknowledged ABI as an ambiguous loss event. The findings also illuminated families’ strengths and resiliencies in coping with living with ABI. The study results suggest by “ thinking family ” nurses can contribute towards a healthcare model that focuses on “family” as the central unit of care.
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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 it