Financial Capability and Financial Well-Being Challenges and Vulnerabilities of Adults Living With Acquired Brain Injury: A Pilot Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To describe the financial capability (FC) and financial well-being (FWB) of adults living with acquired brain injury (ABI) from a lived experience perspective. Design: People living with ABI completed a 32-item and close others a 22-item anonymous survey using either online or print/mail-in options. Setting: Responses were collected from adults in the province of Manitoba (Canada) during August-October 2021. Participants: Respondents were adults (18+) living with ABI (n=38) or close others of ABI survivors (n=19). Adults living with ABI experienced traumatic brain injury (n=22; 58%), stroke (n=8; 21%), or other ABI mechanisms (n=8; 21%). Nineteen (50%) respondents with ABI were men, 17 (45%) were women, and 1 (2.5%) was nonbinary; 95% were more than 1-year post-ABI. Close others were spouses/partners, parents, other family, and paid caregivers. Three of the 19 close others self-reported as men and 16 as women. Interventions: n/a. Main Outcome Measures: n/a. Results: For key FC indicators, 13 (34%) people living with ABI felt their current knowledge and skills were insufficient, and 26 (70%) felt that ABI had affected their ability to make financial decisions or complete financial activities. Fourteen of the 19 close others have worried about the finance-related choices, skills, or behaviors of the person living with ABI, and 17 felt that ABI symptoms had affected the FC of the person living with ABI. For key FWB indicators, 22 (58%) adults living with ABI felt stressed or anxious about finances at least some of the time. Seventeen (45%) of the adults living with ABI reported having trouble making ends meet at least some of the time. Conclusions: Respondents reported FC limitations and FWB challenges for people living with ABI, which can be indicative of financial vulnerabilities and unmet needs. Future research should explore optimal ways to address these financial-related challenges after ABI.
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 | 0.008 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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".