Adapting Strategy Training for Adults With Acquired Brain Injury: A Feasibility Study in a Chinese Population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: Before introducing strategy training into a cross-cultural (Chinese) context, it is necessary to evaluate its feasibility. OBJECTIVE: To examine the feasibility of applying strategy training to improve participation outcomes of rehabilitation patients in Taiwan and evaluate the potential intervention effects. DESIGN: A single-group, repeated-measures study. SETTING: Rehabilitation outpatient settings. PARTICIPANTS: A convenience sample of adults (N = 20) with a primary diagnosis of acquired brain injury (ABI) and with cognitive impairment received the intervention and were assessed before and after it. INTERVENTION: The participation-focused strategy training intervention, a modified version of the strategy training intervention, was provided to participants in 1-2 sessions weekly for a total of 10-20 intervention sessions. OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Feasibility indicators, Participation Measure-3 Domains, 4 Dimensions (PM-3D4D), and Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM). RESULTS: Eighteen participants completed 100% of the scheduled intervention sessions. Participants had very good engagement in the intervention sessions with sufficient comprehension. Participants reported moderate to high satisfaction. Positive score changes were observed for the PM-3D4D (d = 0.46-1.25) and COPM scales (d = 1.82 and 2.12). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This study demonstrated the feasibility of delivering participation-focused strategy training in Taiwan to people with cognitive impairment after ABI. The preliminary evidence also showed that participants who received the strategy training intervention had positive changes in participation outcomes and in performance of their self-identified goals. On the basis of this study's findings, a larger clinical trial is warranted to evaluate the efficacy of the strategy training intervention. WHAT THIS ARTICLE ADDS: Participation-focused strategy training is feasible and acceptable for Taiwanese community-dwelling adults with cognitive impairment after ABI. However, because strategy training is quite different from traditional rehabilitation delivered in Taiwan, additional instructions and discussion among the therapist, client, and caregiver may be needed before the intervention is provided.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".