Contextual factors of financial capability and financial well-being for adults living with brain injury: a qualitative photovoice study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To identify the contextual factors related to financial capability and financial well-being for adults living with acquired brain injury (ABI). DESIGN & METHOD: We conducted a qualitative descriptive study using photovoice and included 17 adults who live with ABI in Manitoba, Canada. Over 3-to-5 weeks, participants took photos of their financial capability (i.e. knowledge, skills, and behaviors related to managing finances) or their financial well-being (i.e. subjective and objective financial outcomes). Participants were interviewed about their photos. Five researchers iteratively and thematically analyzed interview transcripts. MAIN OUTCOMES/RESULTS: Analysis identified the importance of the economic, social, technology, and physical or sensory context. Subthemes related to: (i) hard times finding financial resources; (ii) processes not making sense; (iii) getting help from the right person; and (iv) invisible disability bias and stigma. CONCLUSIONS: There is decreased literature about financial capability or financial well-being after ABI. The results of this study highlight the salience of finance to living with ABI and the importance of the context to addressing financial-related life participation for people living with ABI. Information about contextual factors related to finance can improve rehabilitation assessment and intervention practice as well as emphasize needed accessibility changes to financial environments.
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 | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".