Life Satisfaction After Burn Injury—A Comprehensive Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Burn injuries can have long-lasting effects not only on a person's bodily integrity but also on their psychosocial well-being. Since medical advancements have increased survival from burn injuries, improving psychosocial health has become a pivotal goal for burn rehabilitation. Besides health-related quality of life, life satisfaction has become an important parameter for evaluating long-term outcomes after burns. We reviewed life satisfaction after burns among adult burn patients to evaluate the current assessment methods and gain insight into recovery patterns. PubMed, EMBASE, Medline, and Cochrane Library were searched systematically for studies in the English language covering life satisfaction after burns, resulting in the inclusion of 18 studies. The Satisfaction With Life Scale (SWLS) was the most commonly used assessment tool. Others included the Life Satisfaction Index-A (LSI-A) and a non-standardized tool. Most studies' recovery patterns showed a decreased life satisfaction post-burn injury. There was strong agreement that inhalation injury, body dysfunction, an extended hospital stay, and psychological illness before the injury are possible determinants of post-burn life satisfaction and have shown a negative correlation. There seems to be a consistent use of assessment tools, which opens up the possibility of a further comparative investigation to better understand factors that influence life satisfaction after a burn so that this knowledge can be used to improve patients' recovery.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.010 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".