Enhancing daily living and cognitive functions in traumatic brain injury patients through Orem’s self-care theory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction This research seeks to investigate how early rehabilitation nursing, guided by Orem’s self-care theory, affects cognitive function, neurological function, and daily living skills in individuals who have suffered a traumatic brain injury (TBI). Methods A study was conducted with 108 patients with traumatic brain injury who were hospitalized at our facility from January 2021 to March 2023. Based on their admission dates, the participants were separated into a control group (n = 56) and an observation group (n = 52). The control group received standard nursing care, while the observation group received a combination of conventional treatment and nursing interventions based on Orem’s self-care model. The research assessed alterations in the ability to perform daily tasks (Activities of Daily Living, ADL), neurological health (National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale, NIHSS; Glasgow Coma Scale, GCS), and cognitive abilities (Montreal Cognitive Assessment Scale, MoCA; Mini-Mental State Examination, MMSE) in both sets of participants prior to and following 4 and 8 weeks of nursing assistance. Results Following the intervention, the group being observed showed notably increased ADL scores at 4 weeks (p < 0.001) and 8 weeks (p < 0.001) in comparison to the control group. At 4 weeks and 8 weeks after nursing, the observation group had significantly lower NIHSS scores compared to the control group (4 weeks after nursing, p = 0.03; 4 weeks after nursing, p < 0.001). GCS score comparison showed the similar results (4 weeks after nursing, p = 0.013; 4 weeks after nursing, p = 0.003). Moreover, the participants in the observation group had notably higher MoCA and MMSE scores in comparison with the control group 4 and 8 weeks after nursing (all p < 0.001). Conclusion Orem’s self-care theory improves patients’ cognitive, neurological, and daily living functions of TBI patients during early rehabilitation nursing. This method helps enhance the level of care given by healthcare professionals, leading to more thorough and compassionate nursing care for patients.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".