A pilot feasibility study of a randomized controlled trial of goal setting using the Values in Action Inventory of Strengths following brain injury: and, Clinical Research Portfolio

BF Psychology

Wainman-Lefley, Jessica ; Evans, Jonathan

University:University of Glasgow

Department:Institute of Health and Wellbeing

关键词: Brain injury, goal-setting, goal planning, rehabilitation, positive psychology.;   

Others  :  http://theses.gla.ac.uk/74406/1/2019Wainman-LefleyDClinPsy.pdf

来源: University of Glasgow

【 摘 要 】

Background: There exists no gold standard procedure for goal-setting for rehabilitation after brain injury (BI). A person-centred approach is important to motivate and empower clients (Dalton et al., 2012). Assisting clients to identify personal values and drawing on these when setting goals may increase the personal relevance of rehabilitation goals. Objective: To determine feasibility and acceptability of using the Values in Action Inventory of Strengths (VIA-IS) during the rehabilitation goal-setting process, and whether this was feasible in the context of a randomised controlled trial (RCT). Method: In a single-blind feasibility pilot RCT design, BI participants were recruited from a community BI rehabilitation centre and randomised into goal-setting using the VIA-IS, and goal-setting as usual. Outcomes included the feasibility and acceptability of completing the VIA-IS, and its use in setting goals in a BI rehabilitation context, and whether it affected types of goals set, categorised using the International Classification of Functioning (ICF), Disability, and Health activities and participation categories (WHO, 2001). Memory for goals approximately two weeks after goal-setting was measured, and a sample size calculated for a future full-scale trial.Results: Twenty-two BI participants were recruited, and randomised to the VIA-IS (n = 11) and control group (n = 10). Two dropped out of the VIA-IS condition prior to completion, and the group allocation of one is unknown due to non-completion of the study, leaving a total n = 19. The majority (89%) of participants rated the VIA-IS as acceptable; both groups described the goal-setting process as ‘easy’. Feedback ranged from positive (enjoyment, rapport building), to negative (repetitive, too long). Two thirds of the VIA-IS group used their VIA-IS results to set goals and described it as helpful. There were no major differences in ICF categories between groups. Based on the data from this study, a sample size of 66 was calculated for a full-scale trial.Conclusions: A full-scale trial with multi-centre design appears warranted though may be more clinically beneficial if limited to BI clients who are more difficult to engage.