“Somewhere along the line, your mask isn’t going to be fitting right”: institutional racism in Black narratives of traumatic brain injury rehabilitation across the practice continuum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Over two decades of research about traumatic brain injury (TBI) rehabilitation emphasized the persistence of racial health disparities in functional outcomes that disproportionately impact Black populations without naming or addressing racism as the root problem. Further, the experiences of Black people with TBI have yet to be documented and accounted for in scientific scholarship from the perspectives of Black persons in Canada. Purpose This study intended to examine the rehabilitation narratives of Black TBI survivors, family caregivers, and rehabilitation providers and use critical race theory as a conceptual framework to understand how anti-Black racism manifests in those experiences. Methods Through critical narrative inquiry informed by a critical constructivist paradigm and a critical race theory lens, in-depth narrative interviewing were conducted with seven survivors, three family caregivers, and four rehabilitation providers. Data were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis within and across groups of participants to conceptualize themes and sub-themes. Findings Themes captured how racism becomes institutionalized in TBI rehabilitation: (1) the institutional construction of deficient Black bodies, (2) the institutional construction of rehabilitation access, (3) the institutional investment in resisting and approximating whiteness in rehabilitation practice, and (4) the institutional construction of deficient Black futures. Conclusion Study findings point to the dire need to ensure rehabilitation programs, services, and the delivery of care are not determined based on inequitable practices, racial biases and assumptions about Black people, which determine who deserves to get into rehabilitation and have opportunities to be supported in working towards living a full and meaningful life.
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 | 0.013 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.031 | 0.033 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| 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".