A window into the reality of families living long term with challenging behaviours after a TBI
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Challenging behaviours are a long-term burden for people with traumatic brain injury (TBI) and their families. Families frequently shoulder the responsibility alone, but little is known about the strategies they use to manage these behaviours. This study aimed to 1) identify the coping strategies used by people with TBI living in the community and their family caregivers to manage challenging behaviours; and 2) describe the similarities and differences between strategies used by people with TBI and caregivers. In this qualitative descriptive design, individual semi-structured interviews were conducted with adults with TBI and their caregivers and were inductively analyzed. The sample included 10 dyads and two triads, totalling 12 caregivers (8 women) and 14 individuals with TBI (6 women; 21.71 ± 10.84 years post-injury). Participants' strategies were proactive (prevention), reactive (response), or retroactive (aftercare). Most strategies were described by caregivers. Some of them were effective and lasting, others not, reflecting how they adapted their approaches over time. Families put in place various strategies in their life's journey, such as giving feedback or adapting the environment. Despite these strategies supporting long-term community living, the need for ongoing support is underscored, as crises may still occur, impacting families' quality of life.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".