A comparison of systematic instruction, error-based learning and trial and error to train the use of smartphone memory apps after acquired brain injury: A three-armed phase II randomised controlled trial study protocol

AppReminders - a pilot feasibility randomized controlled trial of a memory aid app for people with acquired brain injury

Mobile phone reminding apps can be used by people with acquired brain injury (ABI) to compensate for memory impairments. This pilot feasibility trial aimed to establish the feasibility of a randomized controlled trial comparing reminder apps in an ABI community treatment setting. Adults with ABI and memory difficulty who completed the three-week baseline were randomized (n = 29) and allocated to Google Calendar or ApplTree app. Those who attended an intervention session (n = 21) watched a 30-minute video tutorial of the app then completed reminder setting assignments to ensure they could use the app. Guidance was given if needed from a clinician or researcher. Those who passed the app assignments (n = 19) completed a three-week follow up. Recruitment was lower than target (n = 50), retention rate was 65.5%, adherence rate was 73.7%. Qualitative feedback highlighted issues that may impact usability of reminding apps introduced within community brain injury rehabilitation. Feasibility results indicate a full trial would require 72 participants to demonstrate the minimally clinically important efficacy difference between apps, should a difference exist. Most participants (19 of 21) given an app could learn to use it with the short tutorial. Design features implemented in ApplTree have potential to improve the uptake and utility of reminding apps.

Which training methods are effective for learning new smartphone memory apps after acquired brain injury? A pilot randomized controlled trial comparing trial and error, systematic instruction and error-based learning

This study aimed to compare the efficacy of three skills training methods (Trial and error TEL; systematic instruction SI; and error-based learning EBL) for training the use of a smartphone reminder app in individuals with an acquired brain injury. Participants (N = 38, M_age = 61.21 years, 71.1% stroke) were randomly allocated to one of three training conditions and trained over one two-hour session. Proficiency of performance with the trained app (primary outcome) was assessed immediately post-training, one- and six-weeks post-intervention. Secondary outcomes included generalization of skills, error commission, smartphone use frequency and confidence, and subjective memory complaints. Proficiency with the trained app after TEL was higher than SI immediately after the training (d = 0.87) and EBL at the one-week follow-up (d = 0.98). No differences were found six-weeks post-training. Smartphone use confidence increased at the six-week follow-up after TEL (d = 1.12) and EBL training (d = 0.91) but not after SI (d = 0.26). Self-reported memory complaints decreased across time for all groups (η_p² = 0.30). There was no clearly superior training method for optimizing proficiency with the reminder app. The expected benefits of SI and EBL may not have emerged due to the single-session format of the training. However, smartphone training via TEL or EBL has the potential to address confidence-related barriers to smartphone use.

Occupational therapy for cognitive impairment in stroke patients

BACKGROUND

Cognitive impairment is a frequent consequence of stroke and can impact on a person's ability to perform everyday activities. Occupational therapists use a range of interventions when working with people who have cognitive impairment poststroke. This is an update of a Cochrane Review published in 2010.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the impact of occupational therapy on activities of daily living (ADL), both basic and instrumental, global cognitive function, and specific cognitive abilities in people who have cognitive impairment following a stroke.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, four other databases (all last searched September 2020), trial registries, and reference lists.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials that evaluated an intervention for adults with clinically defined stroke and confirmed cognitive impairment. The intervention needed either to be provided by an occupational therapist or considered within the scope of occupational therapy practice as defined in the review. We excluded studies focusing on apraxia or perceptual impairments or virtual reality interventions as these are covered by other Cochrane Reviews. The primary outcome was basic activities of daily living (BADL) such as dressing, feeding, and bathing. Secondary outcomes were instrumental ADL (IADL) (e.g. shopping and meal preparation), community integration and participation, global cognitive function and specific cognitive abilities (including attention, memory, executive function, or a combination of these), and subdomains of these abilities. We included both observed and self-reported outcome measures.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies that met the inclusion criteria, extracted data, and assessed the certainty of the evidence. A third review author moderated disagreements if consensus was not reached. We contacted trial authors for additional information and data, where available. We assessed the certainty of key outcomes using GRADE.  MAIN RESULTS: We included 24 trials from 11 countries involving 1142 (analysed) participants (two weeks to eight years since stroke onset). This update includes 23 new trials in addition to the one study included in the previous version. Most were parallel randomised controlled trials except for one cross-over trial and one with a two-by-two factorial design. Most studies had sample sizes under 50 participants. Twenty studies involved a remediation approach to cognitive rehabilitation, particularly using computer-based interventions. The other four involved a compensatory and adaptive approach. The length of interventions ranged from 10 days to 18 weeks, with a mean total length of 19 hours. Control groups mostly received usual rehabilitation or occupational therapy care, with a few receiving an attention control that was comparable to usual care; two had no intervention (i.e. a waiting list). Apart from high risk of performance bias for all but one of the studies, the risk of bias for other aspects was mostly low or unclear.  For the primary outcome of BADL, meta-analysis found a small effect on completion of the intervention with a mean difference (MD) of 2.26 on the Functional Independence Measure (FIM) (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17 to 4.22; P = 0.03, I2 = 0%; 6 studies, 336 participants; low-certainty evidence). Therefore, on average, BADL improved by 2.26 points on the FIM that ranges from 18 (total assist) to 126 (complete independence). On follow-up, there was insufficient evidence of an effect at three months (MD 10.00, 95% CI -0.54 to 20.55; P = 0.06, I2 = 53%; 2 studies, 73 participants; low-certainty evidence), but evidence of an effect at six months (MD 11.38, 95% CI 1.62 to 21.14, I2 = 12%; 2 studies, 73 participants; low-certainty evidence). These differences are below 22 points which is the established minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for the FIM for people with stroke. For IADL, the evidence is very uncertain about an effect (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.94, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.47; P = 0.0005, I2 = 98%; 2 studies, 88 participants). For community integration, we found insufficient evidence of an effect (SMD 0.09, 95% CI -0.35 to 0.54; P = 0.68, I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 78 participants). There was an improvement of clinical importance in global cognitive functional performance after the intervention (SMD 0.35, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.54; P = 0.0004, I2 = 0%; 9 studies, 432 participants; low-certainty evidence), equating to 1.63 points on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) (95% CI 0.75 to 2.52), which exceeds the anchor-based MCID of the MoCA for stroke rehabilitation patients of 1.22. We found some effect for attention overall (SMD -0.31, 95% CI -0.47 to -0.15; P = 0.0002, I2 = 20%; 13 studies, 620 participants; low-certainty evidence), equating to a difference of 17.31 seconds (95% CI 8.38 to 26.24), and for executive functional performance overall (SMD 0.49, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.66; P < 0.00001, I2 = 74%; 11 studies, 550 participants; very low-certainty evidence), equating to 1.41 points on the Frontal Assessment Battery (range: 0-18). Of the cognitive subdomains, we found evidence of effect of possible clinical importance, immediately after intervention, for sustained visual attention (moderate certainty) equating to 15.63 seconds, for working memory (low certainty) equating to 59.9 seconds, and thinking flexibly (low certainty), compared to control.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The effectiveness of occupational therapy for cognitive impairment poststroke remains unclear. Occupational therapy may result in little to no clinical difference in BADL immediately after intervention and at three and six months' follow-up. Occupational therapy may slightly improve global cognitive performance of a clinically important difference immediately after intervention, likely improves sustained visual attention slightly, and may slightly increase working memory and flexible thinking after intervention. There is evidence of low or very low certainty or insufficient evidence for effect on other cognitive domains, IADL, and community integration and participation.  Given the low certainty of much of the evidence in our review, more research is needed to support or refute the effectiveness of occupational therapy for cognitive impairment after stroke. Future trials need improved methodology to address issues including risk of bias and to better report the outcome measures and interventions used.

The experience and acceptability of smartphone reminder app training for people with acquired brain injury: a mixed methods study

Smartphones are useful compensatory memory aids, yet training on how to use them is seldom offered as part of rehabilitation for acquired brain injuries (ABIs). We aimed to explore the experience and acceptability of a smartphone training intervention in 26 people with ABI who participated in a pilot randomized controlled trial comparing three skills training approaches. Participants completed questionnaire ratings and a semi-structured interview, six weeks post-training. Most participants rated the training as enjoyable (80.8%) and reasonable in duration (88.5%). Others reported that more than one training session was needed to learn the app (34.6%). Five themes were identified from qualitative data through thematic analysis: (1) Attitudes and pre-existing factors, (2) Experiencing the intervention, (3) Tailoring the intervention to the individual, (4) Facilitators and barriers to implementation and (5) Enhancing smartphone use in everyday life. These themes were juxtaposed with a theoretical framework of acceptability, which indicated that some elements (e.g., having a structured session and a supportive trainer) contributed to the acceptability of the intervention by minimizing training burden and increasing self-efficacy. Tailoring the training to the individual's technological skills and lifestyle, providing post-training resources and involving family members were identified as factors that could improve intervention acceptability.