Cognitive assistance to support individuals with traumatic brain injury using a minimal and personalised approach: A conversion mixed methods study using video analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Individuals with traumatic brain injury (TBI) frequently need assistance to manage complex everyday activities. However, little is known about the types of cognitive assistance that can be used to facilitate optimal independence. A conversion mixed method study using video analysis was conducted to describe assistance provided by trained occupational therapists during three everyday tasks carried out in the participants' homes and surrounding environments. METHODS: Forty-five people with moderate and severe TBI were tested by three occupational therapists using the Instrumental Activities of Daily Living Profile, an observation-based assessment that documents independence in complex everyday activities and the minimal assistance required to attain task goals. Using video analysis, difficulties experienced by the people with TBI during a meal preparation and grocery shopping task, and the cognitive assistance provided by the occupational therapists in response to these difficulties, were documented. Statistical analyses were also completed to identify the main difficulties and types of cognitive assistance provided during the evaluation, for the whole group and depending on their level of independence. RESULTS: Nine types of cognitive assistance were used by occupational therapists, including implicit (stimulating thought processes), and more explicit assistance (cueing), to facilitate task performance. When needed, motivational assistance, which consisted of encouraging participants to think for themselves, was also used. Stimulating thought processes was mostly used to support goal formulation and planning, whereas cueing was used in numerous instances. Participants with lower levels of independence received more assistance of almost all types to support them. CONCLUSION: Using these findings, training could be developed for caregivers and occupational therapists to support them in providing minimal and personalised cognitive assistance. Further research is needed to examine the extent to which all types of cognitive assistance are effective in helping various cognitive profiles of people with TBI attain optimal independence.
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 | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".