An educational intervention to promote a culture of gender equity among persons with traumatic brain injury and caregivers: A pilot study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Traumatic brain injury (TBI) outcomes are dependent on patients' biological sex (e.g., hormone levels) and sociocultural gender (e.g., norms, responsibilities). Informal caregivers additionally experience disruptions to identity and roles post-TBI. However, information on this topic remains largely unavailable to patients and caregivers. Purpose: This study aimed to determine the effectiveness of a one-time educational intervention on sex and gender influences in TBI for patients and informal caregivers. Materials and methods: We conducted a pilot pre-test/post-test randomized control-group design study. Groups (i.e., passive, active and control) consisted a total of 16 persons with TBI and caregivers (75% persons with TBI, 63% women). Individual and group learning gains, and group-average normalized gain, were computed for three learning domains: knowledge, attitude, and skill. An intervention with an average normalized gain of ≥30% was considered effective. Educational intervention evaluation and qualitative comments post-participation were summarized. Results: The passive group demonstrated the highest average normalized gain across the three learning domains, including 100% for knowledge, 40% and 61% for attitude, and 37% for skill. The remaining groups did not reach an average normalized gain of ≥30%, except for the attitude domain of the control group (33% and 32%). Two key categories were identified qualitatively: (1) gendered self-expectations post-injury and (2) implications of gender stereotypes in rehabilitation, including the need for rehabilitation treatment to look beyond sex and gender. The post-participation educational session evaluation conveyed high appraisal of content, organization, and usability of the intervention. Conclusion: A one-time passive educational intervention on sex and gender in TBI may improve knowledge, attitude, and skill on the topic of sex and gender among adults with TBI and caregivers. Obtaining knowledge and skill on sex and gender effects in TBI can potentially help persons with TBI and caregivers adapt to changes in roles and behaviours post-injury.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".