Parent Interventions Improve Behavior After Pediatric Traumatic Brain Injury: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine child behavior change scores from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of parent interventions for pediatric traumatic brain injury (TBI). METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and CINAHL were searched to identify studies that examined parent interventions for pediatric TBI. Inclusion criteria included (i) a parent intervention for children with TBI; (ii) an RCT study design; (iii) statistical data for child behavior outcome(s); and (iv) studies that were published in English. RESULTS: Seven studies met inclusion criteria. All interventions reported improved child behavior after pediatric TBI; however, child and parent factors contributed to behavior change scores in some interventions. Factors found to contribute to the level of benefit included age of child, baseline behavior levels, sociodemographics (eg, parent income, parent education), and parent mental health. CONCLUSION: Improved child behavior outcomes resulting from parent interventions for pediatric TBI are well supported by the evidence in the peer-reviewed literature. Clinicians are encouraged to consider child and parent factors as they relate to child behavior outcomes.
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 | 0.012 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.018 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".