Investigating the Efficacy of a Community Support Network Rehabilitation Intervention for Improving Resiliency, Quality of Life, and Neurocognitive Function in Survivors of Intimate Partner Violence–Caused Brain Injury: Protocol for a Feasibility Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Globally, approximately 1 in 3 women experience intimate partner violence (IPV) in their lifetime. Brain injury (BI) is a common, yet often unrecognized, consequence of IPV. BIs caused by IPV tend to be mild, occur repetitively over the course of months or years, are remote in time, and result in chronic symptoms. Similar to BI from other causes, therapeutic treatment for women with IPV-caused BI (IPV-BI) is crucial to help resolve any physical or cognitive impairments, enhance the quality of life (QoL), and minimize longer-term neurodegeneration. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to investigate the feasibility and efficacy of a community support network (CSN) rehabilitation intervention regarding its impact on resiliency, QoL, and neurocognitive function. METHODS: In this pre- and postexperimental design, women (aged 18 to 50 years) who are survivors of IPV and IPV-BI will be recruited from various community organizations serving survivors of IPV. Exclusion criteria will include current pregnancy and any diagnosed neurological disorder known to affect cerebrovascular, neurocognitive, or sensorimotor function. A CSN rehabilitation intervention that includes aerobic exercise, cognitive training, mindfulness meditation, and counseling will be administered. A trauma-informed approach will be integrated into the design and implementation of the program. Furthermore, the program will include a participant navigator who will provide trauma- and violence-informed advocacy and systems navigation support to participants, in addition to facilitating a monthly peer support group. The intervention will be provided for 2.5 hours a day and 2 days a week for 3 months. Participants will complete psychological assessments and provide clinic-demographic information in the first assessment. In the second (before intervention), third (after intervention), and fourth (at follow-up) sessions, they will complete tests of resiliency, QoL, and neurocognition. The estimated sample size is 100. The objective of this study will be accomplished by quantitatively measuring resiliency, QoL, and neurocognition before and immediately after the intervention. A follow-up assessment will occur 3 months after the completion of the intervention to evaluate the maintenance of any improvements in function. One-way ANOVAs will be used to evaluate the intervention outcome across the testing times. Relationships among various variables will be explored using regression analysis. RESULTS: We anticipate that the CSN rehabilitation intervention will be effective in improving resiliency, QoL, and neurocognitive function in women who have experienced IPV-BI. Furthermore, we anticipate that this intervention will be feasible in terms of study recruitment, adherence, and retention. CONCLUSIONS: The CSN rehabilitation intervention will have a positive impact on resiliency, QoL, and neurocognitive functions in survivors of IPV-BI. Subsequently, a comparative study will be conducted by recruiting a control group receiving usual care. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/54605.
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 | 0.017 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.031 | 0.004 |
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".