Hope for “Continued Vitality”: Qualitative Study of Adults With Traumatic Brain Injury and Low Mood on Their Rehabilitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Depression is highly comorbid with traumatic brain injury (TBI) with often complex and interacting symptomology that contributes to the experience of disability. Comorbid depression results in poorer TBI rehabilitation and downstream participation outcomes yet perspectives of this group regarding person-centered care is unknown. Purpose: This study aimed to explicate the perspectives of persons with TBI and depression on their values, preferences, and desired outcomes for optimal rehabilitation. Methods: = 12) with concussion/mild TBI and at least 6 months post-injury. One-on-one, semi-structured interviews were conducted by phone with Canadian participants (March-May 2020). Interviews were transcribed; data were analyzed thematically by two researchers and the thematic map refined by the research team. Results: Three themes were identified on values, preferences, and desired outcomes in person-centered care. Participants valued "validation" from healthcare providers and the health system to feel seen and believed about their conditions and concerns. They preferred for healthcare providers to "share the burden of managing care" through improved interactions and better access to concussion care. Participants expressed that "meaningful outcomes" were to be symptom free, to resume valued life activities, and to be able to adapt/be resilient. The latter indicated hope for "continued vitality" for life participation despite past and ongoing challenges. Conclusions: Many adults with TBI and self-identified low mood expressed rehabilitation experiences that were invalidating. Their identified values, preferences, and desired outcomes provide directions for better person-centered care by healthcare providers and health systems to support participation.
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 | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".