Getting motivated: long-term perspectives on engaging in community-based programs after acquired brain injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Low motivation is a common problem after acquired brain injury (ABI) and can persist for years after injury. Little is known, however, about perspectives of motivation with respect to engaging in the community, many years after ABI. PURPOSE: To explore the client with ABI perspective of motivation and engagement in individuals based in community ABI programs. METHOD: Interpretive description methods were utilized. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 21 individuals with an ABI. FINDINGS: Participants felt that both internal factors, such as feelings of hope, and external factors, such as social support, influence levels of motivation to engage. When positive internal and external motivators were enhanced, and negative internal and external motivators reduced, this gave rise to a sense of choice and control, which led to increased engagement. IMPLICATIONS: Fostering positive aspects of rehabilitation and increasing choice and control may promote engagement. External motivators, such as reducing repetitiveness and promoting peer support, are motivators that community and clinical settings can implement relatively easily, whilst internal motivators such as attitudes toward therapy may need to be addressed continuously to enhance motivation and engagement.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".