The dual reality of challenging behaviours: Overlapping and distinct perspectives of individuals with TBI and their caregivers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Challenging behaviours significantly impact the lives of people with traumatic brain injury (TBI) and their family caregivers. However, these behaviours are rarely defined from the perspectives of both individuals, a necessary step to developing interventions targeting meaningful goals for individuals and caregivers. This study aimed to (1) explore and confirm the perspective of individuals with TBI living in the community and their family caregivers on behaviours they consider challenging and, (2) identify overlapping or distinct views on challenging behaviours. A qualitative descriptive design was used. Twelve caregivers (8 females; 59.67 ± 11.64 years old) and 14 participants with mild-severe TBI (6 females; 43.21 ± 10.98 years old; time post-injury: 21.71 ± 10.84 years) were interviewed (10 dyads and two triads). Data were analysed using inductive qualitative analysis. Challenging behaviours most frequently reported by all participants were aggressive/impulsive behaviours, inappropriate social behaviours, and behavioural manifestations of cognitive impairments. Overlapping perspectives were identified regarding aggressive behaviours. Distinctions exist as inappropriate social behaviours and cognitive difficulties were mainly reported by caregivers. Our results confirm that perspectives may vary between dyad members. Interventions should include dyad inputs to formulate goals that are significant to the person with TBI and their caregiver.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".