Remotely Supervised Home-Based Intensive Exercise Intervention to Improve Balance, Functional Mobility, and Physical Activity in Survivors of Moderate or Severe Traumatic Brain Injury: Protocol for a Mixed Methods Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Traumatic brain injury (TBI) may impact an individual physically, cognitively, socially, and emotionally. Poor balance, reduced mobility, and low daily physical activity often will require ongoing physical rehabilitation intervention. However, face-to-face specialized physiotherapy is not always accessible for individuals living in rural settings. OBJECTIVE: We will answer four questions: (1) What is the feasibility of a remotely supervised, home-based, intensive exercise intervention with survivors of moderate and severe TBI? (2) Does the frequency of remote supervision have an impact on the feasibility of completing a home-based intensive exercise program? (3) Does the frequency of remote supervision impact balance, functional mobility, and physical activity? (4) What is the lived experience of remote supervision for both survivors and caregivers? METHODS: Four participants will complete two intensive, 4-week (five days per week) home-based exercise interventions remotely supervised via synchronous videoconference. Each exercise intervention will have a goal of 160 to 300 repetitions or 60 minutes of tailored exercises to promote neuroplasticity and be defined as an intensive home-based exercise intervention. An alternating single-subject design will allow for the comparison between two frequencies of remote supervision, once weekly and five times weekly. Daily repeated outcome measures, pre- and postintervention outcome measures, and 1-month follow-up outcome measures will be collected to explore the effect on feasibility and physical variables. Daily outcome measures include step count and Five Times Sit-to-Stand test. Pre-post measures include assessment of quiet stance and the Community Balance and Mobility Scale. A semistructured interview will be completed at the end of each intervention segment to document the lived experience of both survivors and their study partners. Finally, five questionnaires will be used to understand the overall experience: the Mayo-Portland Adaptability Inventory-4 Participation Index, Satisfaction With Life Scale, Fall Efficacy Scale-International, Interpersonal Behavior Questionnaire, and System Usability Scale. Data will be analyzed following traditional single-subject methods of analysis. RESULTS: Ethics approval was received from both the Bruyère Research Institute and University of Ottawa review boards in March 2019. Recruitment is underway. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed intervention is complex in nature due to the involvement of multiple technology sources and the inclusion of a complex dyad (survivors and caregivers) in a community setting. This type of research is timely given that alternative methods of physical intervention delivery are needed to facilitate gains in balance, mobility, physical activity among TBI survivors with limited access to clinical care, and the quality of the patients' experience. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/14867.
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 | 0.023 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.036 | 0.006 |
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".