Exploring knowledge of traumatic brain injury in an Australian nursing context
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current study provided an exploratory view into the prevalence of misconceptions about Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) among nurses in Australia, and how completion of a brief educational program about TBI impacted accuracy of knowledge. Participants were 116 Australian nurses, who completed an online survey assessing TBI knowledge prior to and following completion of a 5-week online educational program about TBI. Baseline exploration of knowledge revealed a high prevalence of misconceptions about several aspects of TBI, particularly in relation to unconsciousness and amnesia. While overall results reflected improved knowledge following the educational program, a significant increase in domain-specific knowledge was only observed in relation to recovery from TBI, and surprisingly, over one quarter of the sample demonstrated higher accuracy of TBI knowledge at baseline. Inconsistencies in the ways that knowledge was affected by completion of the educational program were suggestive that perhaps targeted education developed with a focus on the learning needs of nurses may better facilitate knowledge gains. Further research in this area may be beneficial to facilitate education for nurses about TBI more effectively, enabling dissemination of accurate knowledge and a higher standard of care for people affected by TBI.
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 | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".