Comparison of individual, group and combined intevention formats in a randomized controlled trial for facilitating goal attainment and improving psychosocial function following acquired brain injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare individual, group and combined intervention formats for improving goal attainment and psychosocial function following acquired brain injury. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial, waiting list controls. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-five participants with a mean time of 5.29 years (standard deviation = 3.9) since acquired brain injury were randomly allocated into 6 groups involving an intervention or waiting list control condition for 1 of 3 intervention formats. METHODS: Interventions were 3 h/week for 8 weeks. Formats included: group-based support (n = 12), individual occupation-based support (n = 11), and a combined group and individual support intervention (n = 12). Participant outcomes were examined at pre-, post-, and 3-month follow-up assessment on the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure, Patient Competency Rating Scale, and Brain Injury Community Rehabilitation Outcome 39 Scales. RESULTS: Overall, the findings indicated that the individual intervention component appeared to contribute particularly to gains in performance in goal-specific areas. The combined intervention was associated with maintained gains in performance and satisfaction. However, gains in behavioural competency and psychological well-being were more likely to occur after the group and individual interventions. CONCLUSION: These findings generally support the efficacy of brief intervention formats following acquired brain injury, although further research is needed to examine clients' suitability for particular interventions.
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 | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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".