The role of causal attributions in public misconceptions about brain injury.

Abstract

Clarifying the attribution processes that underpin misconceptions about brain injury provides a framework for enhancing rehabilitation and addressing these misconceptions effectively.

Attributions about persons with brain injury: The effects of knowledge and familiarity about brain injury

“…This reasoning suggests a cost to having no markers of injury [14]. By the same logic, in understanding behaviours resulting from the injury, the presence of visible markers of injury creates benefits (and does not only have costs).…”

Assessment of Veteran and Caregiver Knowledge About Mild Traumatic Brain Injury in a VA Medical Center

“…For the unconsciousness domain, 59.0% of respondents believed that a person could wake from a coma with no lasting effects and 41.0% believed that a person waking from a coma could recognize and speak to others almost immediately. For amnesia, more than 82.0% of respondents believed that amnestic patients were normal in every other respect whereas 42.0% believed that a second blow to the head could help restore one's memory. In the recovery domain, 74.0% of respondents were unaware that one TBI increased one's risk for sustaining another.…”

Explain the ‘unexplainable’: A qualitative enquiry of the representations of the caregivers of brain-injured people

“…This 'problem' comes from a lack of valid information (despite scientific knowledge) linked to the ambiguity and to the complexity of the modalities of communication and of the behaviour of the person with TBI. Indeed, this context of uncertainty is compounded by the invisibility of these disorders to the observer (McClure, 2011). The different elements (interpersonal, emotional, relational and ideological) of the context do not allow these 'problematic' situations to be dealt with or analysed rationally.…”