Perceived care partner burden at 1-year post-injury and associations with emotional awareness, functioning, and empathy after TBI: A TBI model systems study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: People with traumatic brain injury (TBI) can lack awareness of their own emotions and often have problems with emotion dysregulation, affective disorders, and empathy deficits. These impairments are known to impact psychosocial behaviors and may contribute to the burden experienced by care partners of individuals with TBI. OBJECTIVE: To examine the associations of emotional awareness, emotional functioning, and empathy among participants with TBI with care partner burden. METHOD: This multisite, cross-sectional, observational study used data from 90 dyads (participants with TBI and their care partner) 1-year post-injury. Participants with TBI completed the Difficulty with Emotional Regulation Scale (DERS; Awareness, Clarity, Goals, Impulse, Nonacceptance, and Strategies subscales); PTSD Checklist-Civilian Version; NIH Toolbox Anger-Affect, Hostility and Aggression Subdomains; PHQ-9; GAD-7; and the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (empathic concern and perspective taking subscales). Care partners completed the Zarit Burden Inventory (ZBI) and provided demographic information. RESULTS: Care partners were predominately female (77%), and most were either a spouse/partner (55.2%) or parent (34.4%). In an unadjusted model that included assessments of emotional awareness, emotional functioning, and empathy of the participant with TBI, the DERS-Awareness and NIH-Hostility subscales accounted for a significant amount of variance associated with care partner burden. These findings persisted after adjusting for care partner age, relationship, education, and the functional status of the participant with TBI (β= 0.493 and β= 0.328, respectively). CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that high levels of hostility and low emotional self-awareness can significantly affect the burden felt by TBI care partners.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".