Managing challenging behaviours in adults with traumatic brain injury: A scoping review of technology-based interventions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Challenging behaviours are one of the most serious sequelae after a traumatic brain injury (TBI). These chronic behaviours must be managed to reduce the associated burden for caregivers, and people with TBI. Though technology-based interventions have shown potential for managing challenging behaviours, no review has synthesised evidence of technology aided behaviour management in the TBI population. The objective of this scoping review was to explore what technology-based interventions are being used to manage challenging behaviours in people with TBI. Two independent reviewers analysed 3505 studies conducted between 2000 and 2023. Studies were selected from five databases using search strategies developed in collaboration with a university librarian. Sixteen studies were selected. Most studies used biofeedback and mobile applications, primarily targeting emotional dysregulation. These technologies were tested in a variety of settings. Two interventions involved both people with TBI and their family caregivers. This review found that technology-based interventions have the potential to support behavioural management, though research and technology development is at an early stage. Future research is needed to further develop technology-based interventions that target diverse challenging behaviours, and to document their effectiveness and acceptability for use by people with TBI and their families.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".