Rehabilitation and violence-related traumatic brain injury: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: There is a dearth of reviews exploring rehabilitation for violence-related traumatic brain injury (TBI) despite its increasing rates and distinct risk factors and outcomes. The aim of this scoping review is to determine the extent to which rehabilitation is available to and accessed by people who sustain TBI from interpersonal violence. METHOD: Electronic databases (i.e., MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL Register of Clinical Trials, CINAHL, APA PsycINFO, Criminal Justice Abstracts, Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts, and Proquest Nursing and Allied Health) and grey literature (i.e., relevant organizations' websites) were systematically searched for peer-reviewed articles and reports that met eligibility criteria. To be included, articles had to report primary findings on rehabilitation interventions that included individuals who sustained a TBI through interpersonal violence. Articles based on the military population were excluded. Data were synthesized through a descriptive numerical summary and qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: Fifty-two primary research articles and five grey literature reports were included. Most (77.2%) of these articles described rehabilitation interventions that addressed TBI sequalae without consideration for violence as a mechanism of injury, beyond reporting sample characteristics. Only thirteen articles (22.4%) considered violence-related TBI by investigating the rehabilitation profile (13.8%) or designing programs specifically for survivors of violence-related TBI (8.6%). There was limited attention to social determinants of health across all studies. CONCLUSION: This is the first scoping review to our knowledge that explored the extent and nature of rehabilitation among persons who experience TBI through violence in civilian populations. Priorities for education, research, and practice are identified.
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 | 0.011 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.019 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".