The Response to Stress Questionnaire for Parents Following Neonatal Brain Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The Response to Stress Questionnaire-Brain Injury (RSQ-BI) was adapted utilizing a patient-oriented approach, exploring parental stress, coping, and associated mental health outcomes in parents of children with neonatal brain injury. The contributions of social risk, child adaptive functioning, and brain injury severity were also explored. METHODS: Using a mixed-method design, this study explored adapted stressor items on the RSQ-BI. Parents and clinicians engaged in semistructured interviews to examine key stressors specific to being a parent of a child with neonatal brain injury. The adapted RSQ-BI was piloted in a parent sample (N = 77, child mean age 1 year 7 months) with established questionnaires of social risk, child adaptive functioning, severity of the child's injury, coping style, and parent mental health. Descriptive statistics and correlations examined parent stress, coping, and their association with parent mental health. RESULTS: The final RSQ-BI questionnaire included 15 stressors. Factor analysis showed stressors loaded onto two factors related to (a) daily role stressors and (b) brain injury stressors. Using the RSQ-BI, parents reported brain injury stressors as more stressful than daily role stressors. When faced with these stressors, parents were most likely to engage in acceptance-based coping strategies and demonstrated lower symptoms of parent depression and anxiety. CONCLUSIONS: The RSQ-BI provides a valuable adaptation to understand both stressors and coping specific to being a parent of a child with neonatal brain injury. Relevant interventions that promote similar coping techniques are discussed for future care and research.
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 | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".