Psychological Interventions for Individuals With Acquired Brain Injury, Cerebral Palsy, and Spina Bifida: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: With current medical advancements, more adolescents with neurodevelopmental disorders are transitioning from child- to adult-centred health care services. Therefore, there is an increasing demand for transitional services to help navigate this transition. Health care transitions can be further complicated by mental health challenges prevalent among individuals with cerebral palsy (CP), spina bifida (SB), and childhood onset acquired brain injury (ABI). Offering evidence-based psychological interventions for these populations may improve overall outcomes during transition period(s) and beyond. The objective of this scoping review is to identify key characteristics of psychological interventions being used to treat the mental health challenges of adolescents and adults with CP, SB, and childhood onset ABI. Methods: Methodological frameworks by Arksey and O'Malley, and Levac and colleagues were used to explore studies published between 2009 and 2019. Included studies were required to be written in English and report on a psychological intervention(s) administered to individuals at least 12 years of age with a diagnosis of CP, SB, or childhood onset ABI. All study designs were included. Results: A total of 11 studies were identified. Of these, eight reported psychological interventions for childhood onset ABI, while three reported on CP. No studies reporting on SB were identified. Commonly used interventions included acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT), psychotherapy, and cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT). Conclusions: There are a limited number of studies investigating psychological interventions for individuals with childhood onset ABI and CP, and none for individuals with SB. Further research into effective psychological interventions for these populations will improve mental health outcomes and transitional services.
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 | 0.008 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".