ABSTRACT

In a single-blind feasibility pilot randomized controlled trial design, brain injury (BI) participants were recruited from a community rehabilitation centre and randomized into goal-setting using the Values in Action Inventory of Strengths (VIA-IS), and goal-setting as usual. Outcomes included the feasibility and acceptability of the VIA-IS, and its use in setting goals in a BI rehabilitation context, and whether it affected types of goals set (International Classification of Functioning (ICF)). Memory for goals two weeks later was measured, and a sample size calculated for a full-scale trial. Twenty-six BI participants were recruited, and randomized to the VIA-IS (n = 13) and control group (n = 13). Two dropped out of the VIA-IS condition, leaving a total n = 24. The majority (92%) of participants rated the VIA-IS as acceptable; both groups described the goal-setting process as “easy”. VIA-IS feedback varied; over two thirds (73%) of VIA-IS participants used their VIA-IS results to set goals and described it as “helpful”. There were no major differences in ICF categories between groups. A sample size of 66 would be required for a full-scale trial. A full-scale trial with multi-centre design appears warranted though might be more clinically beneficial for difficult to engage BI clients.

摘要

在一项单盲可行性试点随机对照试验设计中，脑损伤 (BI) 参与者是从社区康复中心招募的，并使用力量价值行动清单 (VIA-IS) 随机进入目标设定，目标设定为通常。结果包括 VIA-IS 的可行性和可接受性，以及它在 BI 康复环境中设定目标的用途，以及它是否影响设定的目标类型（国际功能分类 (ICF)）。两周后测量目标的记忆力，并为全面试验计算样本量。招募了 26 名 BI 参与者，并随机分配到 VIA-IS（n  = 13）和对照组（n  = 13）。两个退出 VIA-IS 条件，总共留下n = 24. 大多数 (92%) 的参与者认为 VIA-IS 是可以接受的；两组都将目标设定过程描述为“容易”。VIA-IS 反馈多种多样；超过三分之二 (73%) 的 VIA-IS 参与者使用他们的 VIA-IS 结果来设定目标，并将其描述为“有帮助”。各组之间的 ICF 类别没有重大差异。全面试验需要 66 个样本量。一项多中心设计的全面试验似乎是有必要的，但对于难以参与的 BI 客户可能在临床上更有益。