“Your brain can’t wait”: perspectives of children and adolescents with acquired brain injury and their parents on physical rehabilitation during the subacute phase
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Physical interventions during subacute rehabilitation have potential to improve functional recovery. This study explored the perspectives of children and adolescents with acquired brain injury (ABI) and their parents with respect to physical rehabilitation during the subacute phase. METHODS: Thirteen children and adolescents with ABI and their parents were included and interviewed using semi-structured interviews. Interview transcripts were analysed using inductive thematic analysis approach. RESULTS: Six themes were identified: 1) beliefs of physical rehabilitation, 2) content of physical rehabilitation, 3) tailored care, 4) impact of context, 5) communication and 6) transition. The importance of intensive physical practice was widely supported. The positive can-do mentality was emphasised to create an atmosphere of hope, meaning that every effort would be made to achieve maximum recovery. Intensive involvement of parents is considered essential during subacute rehabilitation including an open and mutual dialogue about the focus of rehabilitation, therapy goals and future participation in their own environment. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings highlight the need for an intensive rehabilitation approach, tailored to the individual's needs. The perspectives of children and adolescents and their parents in our study contribute to a better understanding of factors that are important for optimal recovery through physical rehabilitation during the subacute phase.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".