Mood, Activity Participation, and Leisure Engagement Satisfaction (MAPLES): a randomised controlled pilot feasibility trial for low mood in acquired brain injury

Measuring Intolerance of Uncertainty After Acquired Brain Injury: Factor Structure, Reliability, and Validity of the Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale-12

Intolerance of uncertainty (IU) is a risk factor for poor mental health. Acquired brain injury (ABI; for example, stroke, traumatic brain injury) often brings considerable uncertainty and increased mood disorder vulnerability. The Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale-Short Form (IUS-12) is a brief, well-validated IU measure in non-ABI samples, comprising two subscales, namely, Prospective Anxiety and Inhibitory Anxiety. Here, for the first time, we investigated its reliability and validity (N = 118), and factor structure (N = 176), in ABI. Both subscales had high test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficients [ICCs] of .75 and .86) and were significantly associated with mood disorder symptoms. The two-factor model was superior to a one-factor IU model fit. Some fit statistics were less than optimal (standardized root mean square residual [SRMR] = 0.06, root mean square error of approximation [RMSEA] = 0.09); hence, exploration of other factor structures in other ABI samples may be warranted. Nonetheless, the IUS-12 appears suitable in ABI.

Self-directed versus peer-supported digital self-management programmes for mental and sexual wellbeing after acquired brain injury (HOPE4ABI): protocol for a feasibility randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Acquired brain injury (ABI) can lead to biopsychosocial changes such as depression, low self-esteem and fatigue. These changes can cause, and be caused by, sexual issues affecting relationships and wellbeing. Given the relationship between sexual wellbeing and mental health, it is feasible that supporting sexual wellbeing will benefit psychological wellbeing. However, neurorehabilitation is inconsistent and often fragmented across the UK, and psychological, sexual and social support are lacking. Research shows that self-management and peer-support programmes can improve quality of life, self-efficacy and psychological wellbeing after brain injury. This protocol describes a feasibility randomised controlled trial (RCT) of a digital self-management programme to support mental and sexual wellbeing (known as HOPE4ABI), co-designed with and for people with ABI.

METHODS

This mixed-methods feasibility RCT has two parallel trial arms of the 8-week digital HOPE4ABI self-management programme. Eligibility criteria include age > 18 years, diagnosed or suspected ABI > 3 months prior to trial entry, access to an Internet-enabled device and ability to engage with the intervention. Referrals to the study website will be made via the National Health Service (NHS), social media and partnering organisations. Sixty eligible participants will be randomised at a ratio of 1:1 to peer-supported (n = 30) or self-directed (n = 30) HOPE4ABI programmes. Primary feasibility outcomes include recruitment and retention rates, engagement, adherence and usage. Secondary outcomes related to standardised measures of quality of life, sexual wellbeing and mental wellbeing. Participants and peer facilitators will be interviewed after the course to assess acceptability across both trial arms.

DISCUSSION

This feasibility trial data is not sufficiently powered for inferential statistical analyses but will provide evidence of the feasibility of a full RCT. Quantitative trial data will be analysed descriptively, and participant screening data representing age, ethnicity and gender will be presented as proportions at the group level. These data may indicate trends in reach to particular demographic groups that can inform future recruitment strategies to widen participation. Progression to a definitive trial will be justified if predetermined criteria are met, relating to recruitment, retention, engagement and acceptability.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN46988394 registered on March 1, 2023.

Mood, Activity Participation, and Leisure Engagement Satisfaction (MAPLES): results from a randomised controlled pilot feasibility trial for low mood in acquired brain injury

BACKGROUND

Acquired brain injury (ABI) is linked to increased depression risk. Existing therapies for depression in ABI (e.g., cognitive behavioural therapy) have mixed efficacy. Behavioural activation (BA), an intervention that encourages engaging in positively reinforcing activities, shows promise. The primary aims were to assess feasibility, acceptability, and potential efficacy of two 8-week BA groups.

METHODS

Adults (≥ 18 years) recruited from local ABI services, charities, and self-referral via social media were randomised to condition. The Activity Planning group (AP; "traditional" BA) trained participants to plan reinforcing activities over 8 weeks. The Activity Engagement group (AE; "experiential" BA) encouraged engagement in positive activities within session only. Both BA groups were compared to an 8-week Waitlist group (WL). The primary outcomes, feasibility and acceptability, were assessed via recruitment, retention, attendance, and qualitative feedback on groups. The secondary outcome, potential efficacy, was assessed via blinded assessments of self-reported activity levels, depression, and anxiety (at pre- and post-intervention and 1 month follow-up) and were compared across trial arms. Data were collected in-person and remotely due to COVID-19.

RESULTS

N = 60 participants were randomised to AP (randomised n = 22; total n = 29), AE (randomised n = 22; total n = 28), or re-randomised following WL (total n = 16). Whether in-person or remote, AP and AE were rated as similarly enjoyable and helpful. In exploring efficacy, 58.33% of AP members had clinically meaningful activity level improvements, relative to 50% AE and 38.5% WL. Both AP and AE groups had depression reductions relative to WL, but only AP participants demonstrated anxiety reductions relative to AE and WL. AP participants noted benefits of learning strategies to increase activities and learning from other group members. AE participants valued social discussion and choice in selecting in-session activities.

CONCLUSIONS

Both in-person and remote group BA were feasible and acceptable in ABI. Though both traditional and experiential BA may be effective, these may have different mechanisms.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03874650. Protocol version 2.3, May 26 2020.

Developing behavioural activation for people with acquired brain injury: a qualitative interpretive description study of barriers and facilitators to activity engagement

BACKGROUND

Acquired brain injuries (ABI) from stroke, head injury, or resected brain tumours are associated with poor emotional wellbeing and heightened risk of mood disorder. Common sequalae of ABI, such as poor attention and memory, can create barriers to the efficacy of cognitively demanding mood interventions, such as Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT). Behavioural Activation (BA), where individuals plan and engage in reinforcing activities, is a promising alternative due to lower cognitive demands. However, BA was initially developed in clinical populations without ABI where the primary barriers to activity engagement were low mood and anxious avoidance. Additionally, BA can incorporate a range of techniques (e.g., mood monitoring, activity scheduling, targeting avoidance, contingency management) and psychoeducational topics (e.g., mindfulness, managing uncertainty; social/communication skills). Exploring barriers and facilitators to adopting specific BA components in ABI is an important aim.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with purposively selected ABI survivors (N = 16) with both low and high depressive symptoms, and family members (N = 7). Questions focused on routine and enjoyable activities, and feedback on 10 different BA techniques and associated psychoeducational topics. Transcripts were analysed using an interpretive description framework. Analysis was informed by field notes, reflexivity diaries, and peer debriefing.

RESULTS

The final constructed framework, Creating Sustainable Engagement, comprises a two-tier hierarchy. Higher-level themes concerned core perspectives of BA, regardless of BA component discussed. This included identifying optimal time windows for different BA components (Right Tool at the Right Time), that BA components should, at least initially, not be burdensome or fatiguing (Perceived Effort), that emotional readiness to confront activity-mood relationships should be addressed (Emotional Impact), and that planned BA activities be consistent with individual values (Relation to Values). Lower-level themes concerned specific BA components: Of these, activity scheduling, procedures targeting avoidance, managing uncertainty and social/communication skills were generally well-received, while mood monitoring, contingency management, and mindfulness had mixed feedback.

CONCLUSIONS

BA is a widely scalable intervention that can be adapted for ABI. This study provides a novel framework on implementing a range of BA components in ABI and adds to the limited evidence on which components may be particularly suitable.

Environmental enrichment for stroke and other non-progressive brain injury

BACKGROUND

Rehabilitation is effective for recovery after stroke and other non-progressive brain injuries but it is unclear if the rehabilitation environment itself, outside of limited therapy hours, is maximally conducive to recovery. Environmental enrichment is a relatively new concept within rehabilitation for humans. In this review, this is defined as an intervention designed to facilitate physical (motor and sensory), cognitive and social activity by the provision of equipment and organisation of a structured, stimulating environment. The environment should be designed to encourage (but not force) activities without additional specialised rehabilitation input.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of environmental enrichment on well-being, functional recovery, activity levels and quality of life in people who have stroke or non-progressive brain injury.

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted the search on 26 October 2020. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE (from 1950); Embase (from 1980); the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL; from 1982); the Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED; from 1985); PsycINFO (from 1806); the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro; from 1999); and 10 additional bibliographic databases and ongoing trial registers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We planned to include randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared environmental enrichment with standard services.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed eligible studies, extracted data, and assessed study quality. Any disagreements were resolved through discussion with a third review author. We determined the risk of bias for the included study and performed a 'best evidence' synthesis using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified one RCT, involving 53 participants with stroke, comparing environmental enrichment (which included physical, cognitive and social activities such as reading material, board and card games, gaming technology, music, artwork, and computer with Internet) with standard services in an inpatient rehabilitation setting. We excluded five studies, found two studies awaiting classification and one ongoing study which described environmental enrichment in their interventions. Of the excluded studies, three were non-RCTs and two described co-interventions with a significant component of rehabilitation. Based on the single small included RCT at high risk of bias, data are insufficient to provide any reliable indication of benefit or risk to guide clinical practice in terms of the provision of environmental enrichment.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The gap in current research should not, however, be interpreted as proof that environmental enrichment is ineffective. Further research is needed with robust study designs, such as cluster RCTs, and consistent outcome measurement evaluating the effectiveness of environmental enrichment in different settings (inpatient versus outpatient), the relative effectiveness of various components of environmental enrichment, cost-effectiveness, and safety of the intervention in people following stroke or other non-progressive brain injuries. It should be noted, however, that it is challenging to randomise or double-blind trials of environmental enrichment given the nature of the intervention.