Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28836809›Full record

Trial reportRehabilitation psychology2017

Teen online problem solving for teens with traumatic brain injury: Rationale, methods, and preliminary feasibility of a teen only intervention.

Shari L Wade, Megan E Narad, Kathleen M Kingery, H Gerry Taylor, Terry Stancin, Michael W Kirkwood, Keith O Yeates

Open access · hybridAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Rehabilitation psychology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
4.8field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.

Shari L WadeDivision of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center.
Megan E NaradDivision of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center.
Kathleen M KingeryDepartment of Psychology, University of Cincinnati.
H Gerry TaylorDivision of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics and Psychology, Department of Pediatrics, Case Western Reserve University.
Terry StancinDivision of Pediatric Psychology, Department of Pediatrics, Metro-Health Medical Center.
Michael W KirkwoodDepartment of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Children's Hospital Colorado.
Keith O YeatesDepartment of Psychology, Alberta Children's Hospital Research Institute.
Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center · USAlberta Children's Hospital · CACase Western Reserve University · USChildren's Hospital Colorado · USMetroHealth · USUniversity of Cincinnati · US

Funding

Online Family Based Problem Solving after Pediatric Traumatic Brain Injury: The Moderating Effect of Attention ProblemsF32HD088011 · NICHD · CINCINNATI CHILDRENS HOSP MED CTR · PI NARAD, MEGAN · 2016 to 2018
$126k
National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation ResearchNICHD NIH HHS F32 HD088011
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

PURPOSE/

objectiveTo describe the Teen Online Problem Solving-Teen Only (TOPS-TO) intervention relative to the original Teen Online Problem Solving-Family (TOPS-F) intervention, to describe a randomized controlled trial to assess intervention efficacy, and to report feasibility and acceptability of the TOPS-TO intervention. Research method and design: This is a multisite randomized controlled trial, including 152 teens (49 TOPS-F, 51 TOPS-TO, 52 IRC) between the ages of 11-18 who were hospitalized for a moderate to severe traumatic brain injury in the previous 18 months. Assessments were completed at baseline, 6-months post baseline, and 12-months post baseline. Data discussed include adherence and satisfaction data collected at the 6-month assessment (treatment completion) for TOPS-F and TOPS-TO.

resultsAdherence measures (sessions completed, dropout rates, duration of treatment engagement, and rates of program completion) were similar across treatment groups. Overall, teen and parent reported satisfaction was high and similar across groups. Teens spent a similar amount of time on the TOPS website across groups, and parents in the TOPS-F spent more time on the TOPS website than those in the TOPS-TO group (p = .002). Parents in the TOPS-F group rated the TOPS website as more helpful than those in the TOPS-TO group (p = .05). CONCLUSIONS/IMPLICATIONS: TOPS-TO intervention is a feasible and acceptable intervention approach. Parents may perceive greater benefit from the family based intervention. Further examination is required to understand the comparative efficacy in improving child and family outcomes, and who is likely to benefit from each approach. (PsycINFO Database Record

Indexed as

InternetProblem SolvingAdolescentAdolescent BehaviorBrain Injuries, TraumaticFeasibility StudiesFemaleHumansMale

Identifiers

PMID28836809
PMCPMC5685161
OpenAlexW2746397191

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.