Patient, Family, and Health Professional Perspectives of How Families are Involved in Adult Inpatient Traumatic Brain Injury Rehabilitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: We aimed to answer the following research question: From the perspectives of patients, family members, and health professionals, how are families involved in the rehabilitation of adult patients with Traumatic Brain Injury at an inpatient Acquired Brain Injury service within an adult rehabilitation centre? Methods: We used an interpretive qualitative approach, from a constructivist view. This approach allowed us to understand and describe family involvement from the perspectives of patients with Traumatic Brain Injury, family members, and health professionals. We conducted one-on-one interviews with patients, family members, and health professionals. We used a three-step analysis method: data reduction, data display, and conclusions/verifications. Results: Six patients, four family members, and ten health professionals participated. Participants described how families are involved in supporting and encouraging the patient, seeking and exchanging information, making decisions, and care and therapy. Conclusion: Overall, patients and family members perceived family involvement as critical, while health professionals viewed it as not always necessary. This study also revealed that patients and family members shared similar understandings of family involvement but had different understandings than health professionals. Recognizing that the adult population and rehabilitation processes are unique and complex, we need to understand how to support family involvement, through patient- and family-centered care, in this type of setting. We also need to understand how to better facilitate patient-family-health professional collaboration.
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 | 0.010 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".