Evaluation of the effectiveness of two clinical training procedures to elicit yes/no responses from patients with a severe acquired brain injury: a randomized single-subject design

Brain Inj. 2003 Dec;17(12):1065-75. doi: 10.1080/0269905031000110535.

Abstract

Primary objective: Thirteen (10 males) participants with severe acquired brain injuries (ABI) were randomly assigned to two treatments, A or B (ABAB, BABA) in a crossover study to determine which treatment approach elicited more consistent and reliable yes/no responses.

Research design: Treatment A consisted of an enriched stimulus environment, collaborative multidisciplinary interventions and additional yes/no response training, while Treatment B consisted of the standard hospital environment and interventions.

Main outcomes: An ANOVA showed no order effect (AB vs BA; p=0.60), but a trend (A vs B;p=0.07) towards statistical significance for increased responsiveness with treatment A. Inter-raterreliability (n=10) ranged from fair-to-good, intra class correlation (ICC) 0.51; 95% confidence interval (CI) (0.29-0.93). Post-hoc analyses showed statistically significant increased responsiveness for four participants with treatment A (p<0.001).

Conclusion: Evidence is provided that enhanced communication strategies can improve responsiveness in a sub-group of participants with severe acquired brain injuries.

Publication types

  • Clinical Trial
  • Randomized Controlled Trial
  • Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

  • Adolescent
  • Adult
  • Aged
  • Analysis of Variance
  • Brain Injury, Chronic / psychology
  • Brain Injury, Chronic / rehabilitation*
  • Communication*
  • Cross-Over Studies
  • Cues
  • Female
  • Humans
  • Male
  • Middle Aged
  • Neuropsychological Tests
  • Treatment Outcome