Remember Me! An Educational Intervention for Individuals with Brain Injury and Memory Loss
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and AimsIt is well established that memory impairments are a significant problem for individuals with brain injuries. According to the OBIA Impact Report (2012), 63% reported having retrograde amnesia as a result of the injury, and 85% reported having anterograde amnesia following brain injury. These issues have a significant negative impact on their overall daily functioning. The purpose of this study was to develop an educational intervention for our clients living with brain injury that would help individuals understand their memory difficulties, and in potentially help improve quality of life, as measured by depression and anxiety questionnaires. MethodsIn partnership with the Ontario Neurotrauma Foundation (ONF), we adapted Baycrestu2019s Memory and Aging Program (MAP) curriculum specifically for individuals with brain injuries. The original MAP curriculum was designed for healthy normal aging adults (seniors), whereas our target audience was individuals living with brain injury. Edits consisted mainly of reorganizing the material so it would be easier for our clients to understand and retain, and adding in content relevant for individuals with brain injury. In this program, education was provided regarding factors affecting memory, process of memory, as well as strategies to improve memory deficits. The curriculum consisted of ten weekly sessions. Our pilot group consisted of a total of N=13. We measured our success by admistering three questionnaires before and after the intervention. These questionnaires included a knowledge test, GAD-7 (anxiety questionnaire), and PHQ-9 (depression questionnaire). ResultstPreliminary results showed significant changes in knowledge baseline before and after the group (p<0.001), from 3.56 (+/-3.89) to 21.25 (+/- 4.87) (N=13). Results from our depression measure (PHQ-9) was also significant (p<0.05), with a pretest score of 8.92 (+/-8.09) and a posttest score of 6.08(+/-6.63) (N=13). Preliminary results show that 100% of the participants would recommend this group to others and found the information valuable. ConclusionsThe memory group provided helpful strategies and lifestyle changes to improve memory deficits, increased insights to their memory impairments and assisted in decreasing their levels of depression. Further work will focus on determining if these results extend to a larger population, and if the benefits gained persist at 6 monthsu2019 follow-up.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.022 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.031 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.002 |
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".