The Effectiveness of Brain Injury Family Intervention in Improving the Psychological Well-Being of Caregivers of Patients With Traumatic Brain Injury: Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Globally, traumatic brain injury (TBI) is recognized as one of the most significant contributors to mortality and disability. Most of the patients who have experienced TBI will be discharged home and reunited with their families or primary caregivers. The degree of severity of their reliance on caregivers varies. Therefore, the task of delivering essential care to the patients becomes demanding for the caregivers. A significant proportion of caregivers expressed considerable burden, distress, and discontentment with their lives. Therefore, it is critical to comprehend the dynamic of TBI and caregivers to optimize patient care, rehabilitation, and administration. The effectiveness of the Brain Injury Family Intervention (BIFI) program tailored for caregivers of patients with TBI has been widely proven in Western countries. However, the impact is less clear among caregivers of patients with TBI in Malaysia. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to assess the effectiveness of BIFI in reducing emotional distress and burden of care, fulfilling the needs, and increasing the life satisfaction of caregivers of patients with TBI at government hospitals in Malaysia. METHODS: This is a 2-arm, single-blinded, randomized controlled trial. It will be conducted at Hospital Rehabilitasi Cheras and Hospital Sungai Buloh. In total, 100 caregivers of patients with TBI attending the neurorehabilitation unit will be randomized equally to the intervention and control groups. The intervention group will undergo the BIFI program, whereas the control group will receive standard treatment. Caregivers aged ≥18 years, caring for patients who have completed >3 months after the injury, are eligible to participate. The BIFI program will be scheduled for 5 sessions as recommended by the developer of the module. Each session will take approximately 90 to 120 minutes. The participants are required to attend all 5 sessions. A total of 5 weeks is needed for each group to complete the program. Self-reported questionnaires (ie, Beck Depression Inventory, Positive and Negative Affect Schedule, Caregiver Strain Index, Satisfaction With Life Scale, and Family Needs Questionnaire) will be collected at baseline, immediately after the intervention program, at 3-month follow-up, and at 6-month follow-up. The primary end point is the caregivers' emotional distress. RESULTS: The participant recruitment process began in January 2019 and was completed in December 2020. In total, 100 participants were enrolled in this study, of whom 70 (70%) caregivers are women and 30 (30%) are men. We are currently at the final stage of data analysis. The results of this study are expected to be published in 2024. Ethics approval has been obtained. CONCLUSIONS: It is expected that the psychological well-being of the intervention group will be better compared with that of the control group after the intervention at 3-month follow-up and at 6-month follow-up. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials IRCT20180809040746N1; https://irct.behdasht.gov.ir/trial/33286. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR1-10.2196/53692.
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 | 0.031 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.054 | 0.007 |
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".