| Author/ Year/ Country/ Study Design/ N |
Methods |
Outcomes |
| Behn et al. (2012)
Australia
RCT
PEDro=6
N=15 |
Population: Caregivers=10, TBI=5. TBI: Mean Age=29.2 yr; Gender: Male=3, Female=2; Mean Time Post Injury=6.8 yr.
Treatment: Caregivers were randomly assigned to a program on how to facilitate better conversations with individuals who had a TBI. The treatment group (n=5) participated in in a range of collaboration and elaboration conversational strategies (17 hr across 8 wk). Collaborative strategies were designed to encourage those with a TBI to participate more actively in conversations. The control group (n=5) was not trained.
Outcome Measure: Adapted Measure of Support in conversation (MSC), Adapted Measure of Participation in Conversation, La Trobe Communication Questionnaire, Modified Burden Scale. |
- The trained group improved significantly on the MSC-acknowledging competence (p<0.001) and MSC-revealing competence (p=0.002).
- Study results found paid caregivers were able to benefit from training; all participants were able to improve their communication skills with those who had sustained a TBI.
- Trained caregivers also found they experienced greater levels of burden and described negative aspects of caring more often than those who were not in the paid group.
|
| Togher et al. (2004)
Australia
RCT Crossover
PEDro=5
N=40 |
Population: Police Officers=20, TBI=20. TBI: Gender: Male=20, Female=0; Mean Age=36.75 yr; Mean Time Post Injury=8.8 yr.
Treatment: Patients were randomly assigned to interact with trained (treatment; n=10) or untrained (control; n=10) male police officers. Trained officers were provided with a 6 wk program targeting communication strategies using videos, theory, and transcripts
Outcome Measure: Analyzed transcripts, Communication effectiveness. |
- Partner training resulted in more efficient and focused interactions, and fewer episodes of unrelated utterances by the people with ABI.
- Trained communication partners were able to use strategies such as providing appropriate feedback and support during service encounter interactions, which enabled people with ABI to respond in an appropriate manner.
|
| Togher et al. (2016)
Australia
PCT
NInitial=44, NFinal=38 |
Population: TBI; Gender: Male=26, Female=18. Control (n=15): Mean Age=38.1 yr; Mean Time Post Injury=9.7 yr. JOINT (n=14): Mean Age=30.3 yr; Mean Time Post Injury=8yr; TBI SOLO (n=15): Mean Age=39.7 yr; Mean Time Post Injury=8.1 yr;
Treatment: Participants were allocated to one of three groups: 1) control group, no training; 2) the JOINT group, attended all sessions together with their communication partner; or 3) the TBI SOLO group, attended sessions without their communication partner. The training was 2.5 hr/wk of group sessions and 1 hr/wk of individual sessions for 10 wk. Outcomes were assessed before and after treatment, and at 6 mo follow-up.
Outcome Measure: La Trobe Communication Questionnaire (LCQ) – Self Report and Significant Other Report. |
- Post treatment, communication partners in JOINT reported greater overall improvements compared to TBI SOLO (p=0.05) and control (p<0.001).
- Post treatment, individuals with TBI and their partners reported more positive change on LCQ in JOINT (p<0.001 for both) and TBI SOLO (p=.01; p=0.004) compared to controls, with only a significant difference on LCQ significant others reports between JOINT and TBI SOLO conditions (p=0.002).
- At follow-up, individuals with TBI reported increase in positive change in communication skills in JOINT (p=0.01) and TBI SOLO (p=0.03) compared to controls, with no significant difference between JOINT and TBI SOLO.
- At follow-up, more change was reported in communication partners in JOINT than TBI SOLO (p=0.01) and controls (p<0.001).
|
| Sim et al. (2013)
Australia
PCT
NInitial=29, NFinal=27 |
Population: TBI; Gender: Male=24, Female=5. JOINT Group (n=14): Mean Age=30.29 yr; Mean Time Post Injury=8.04 yr Control Group (n=15): Mean Age=38.07 yr; Mean Time Post Injury=9.71 yr.
Intervention: Participants and their everyday communication partners (ECPs) were allocated into either the JOINT training that received social communication training or a waitlist control group. The training was 2.5 hr/wk of group sessions and 1 hr/wk of individual sessions for 10 wk
Outcome Measure: Exchange Structure Analysis (ESA), Productivity analysis, Information giving moves (K1), Information requesting or receiving moves (K2), Dynamic Moves (DM), Per Minute Speaking Time (PMST). |
- Those ECPs in the JOINT group, compared to controls, changed their use of questions more often (p=0.04) and their DM (information tracking/negotiation; p=0.07).
- Participates with TBI in the JOINT group made greater improvements in PMST than controls (p=0.03).
- No significant between group changes were identified for ECPS in K1 and K2.
- No significant between group differences were determined for those with TBI in DM, K1, or K2.
|
| Togher et al. (2013)
Australia
PCT
NI=44, NF=38 |
Population: TBI; Gender: Male=38, Female=6. Control (n=15): Mean Age=38.1 yr; Mean Time Post Injury=9.7 yr. JOINT (n=14): Mean Age=30.3 yr; Mean Time Post Injury=8 yr. TBI SOLO (n=15): Mean Age=39.7 yr; Mean Time Post Injury=8.1 yr.
Intervention: Participants were allocated to one of three groups: 1) control group, no training; 2) the JOINT group, attended all sessions together with their communication partner; or 3) the TBI SOLO group, attended sessions without their communication partner. The training was 2.5 hr/wk of group sessions and 1 hr/wk of individual sessions for 10 wk. Training included role-play, listening to audio-recordings, practice interactions, and conversation strategies. Outcomes were assessed before and after treatment, and at 6 mo follow-up.
Outcome Measure: Adapted Measure of Participation in Conversation (MPC), Adapted Measure of Support in Conversation (MSC). |
- On the MPC, the JOINT group had greater improvements than the control group for both casual conversations (CC) and purposeful conversations (PC) on the Interaction scale (CC: p=0.01, PC: p=0.03) and on the Transaction scale (CC: p=0.003, PC: p=0.008).
- The JOINT group made greater gains compared to the TBI SOLO group for Transaction scores in both conditions (CC: p=0.02, PC: p=0.01), and the Interaction scale for PC (p=0.03).
- There were no significant differences between the TBI SOLO group and the control group on the MPC.
- There were no significant between group differences on the MSC.
- At 6mo follow-up, there were no significant changes on outcome measures.
|
