A - 169 Efficacy, Retention and Predictors of Response to Treatment of Group Based Remotely Delivered Goal Management Training for Acquired Brain Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective Given the gap in group-based, remotely delivered executive interventions, and the ubiquitousness of executive impairment in acquired brain injury (ABI), we examined: (1) pre-to-post-to-follow-up efficacy of remotely-delivered, group-based Goal Management Training (GMT; a metacognitive, executive intervention) in individuals with neurological disorders in the chronic stages of illness (2) predictors of response to treatment. Methods Participants and Protocol. N = 160 adults with ABI >6 months post-diagnosis, participated in this single-group study at the Telerehab Centre for ABI @KITE, University Health Network, Toronto, Canada. GMT – which enhances self-awareness, task engagement and task follow-through - was delivered remotely and in group format to allow scalability, peer-to-peer support, cost-effectiveness, and geographical reach. Primary outcomes. Cognitive Failures Questionnaire (CFQ); Dysexecutive Questionnaire (DEX). Predictors of response to treatment. Demographics (age, education); time since injury; and symptom burden (i.e., cognitive, somatic, and emotional). Linear mixed effects models measured efficacy and predictors of change. Results Significant pre/post and pre/follow-up improvements on the CFQ total and “forget”, “false”, and “distract” subscales (95% CI; p = 0.000 all comparisons). Significant pre/post improvements observed for the DEX (95% CI; p = 0.000), but not significant retention. No effects of age, education or time since injury found, indicating generalizability. High symptom burden negatively associated with pre/post and pre/ follow-up improvements on CFQ. Conclusions Encouragingly, this group-based, remotely delivered GMT offers promise of efficacy and retention regardless of age, time since injury or educational attainment of patients, and can reach patients regardless of geographic location. Lower response with heavy symptom burden suggests collateral treatment of symptoms may improve treatment response.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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 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".