Investigating a caregiver-assisted social skills group programme for primary and early high school-aged children with acquired brain injury or cerebral palsy: protocol for a pilot mixed-methods, two-group randomised trial of PEERS Plus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Reaching social milestones is an important goal of childhood. Children with acquired brain injury (ABI) and cerebral palsy (CP) frequently experience challenges with social functioning and participation. The Programme for the Education and Enrichment of Relational Skills (PEERS) is a group-based social skills programme for adolescents. This study will compare an adapted PEERS programme with usual care in a pilot randomised waitlist-controlled trial for primary and early high school-aged children with brain injuries. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This single-centre study will be conducted at the Queensland Cerebral Palsy and Rehabilitation Research Centre at the Centre for Children's Health Research in Brisbane, Australia. Thirty-two school-aged children (grades 3+; 8-13 years) with an ABI or CP and their caregiver(s) will be recruited and randomly assigned to either 12 week PEERS Plus or waitlist usual care. The waitlist group will then participate in PEERS Plus after the 3 month retention time point. The primary outcome will measure individualised social participation goals on the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure immediately postintervention at the primary endpoint (12 weeks). Secondary outcomes include the Social Skills Improvement System Social-Emotional Learning Edition Rating Forms and Quality of Play Questionnaire immediately postintervention, 12 weeks postintervention (26 weeks postbaseline), 36 weeks postintervention (52 weeks postbaseline) for retention. Following completion of the PEERS Plus programme, semistructured focus group interviews will be conducted separately with caregivers and children to explore the lived experience of PEERS. Interpretive description will be used to identify patterns and themes related to participants' experiences. Analyses will follow standard principles for randomised controlled trials using two-group comparisons on all participants on an intention-to-treat basis. Comparisons between groups for primary and secondary outcomes will be conducted using regression models. This study will estimate the unit costs of providing PEERS Plus at different levels of public health facilities in Australia. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been approved by the Medical Research Ethics Committee of The University of Queensland (2022/HE002031) and the Children's Health Queensland Hospital and Health Service Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC/22/QCHQ/87450). Recruitment and participant informed consent process will be completed in accordance with institutional ethic procedures. Dissemination plans include peer-review publication of study results, presentations, and instructional workshops at national and international conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12623000515695.
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 | 0.016 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.041 | 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".