ArticleThe Journal of head trauma rehabilitation
Ecological Momentary Intervention for Memory in Chronic Traumatic Brain Injury: Findings From a Mixed-Methods Pilot and Feasibility Study.
Article in The Journal of head trauma rehabilitation. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo examine acceptability and feasibility of a technology-delivered memory assessment and intervention tool (MEMI, memory ecological momentary intervention) and its intended delivery schedule for adults with chronic traumatic brain injury (TBI). MEMI introduces new information, cues retrieval, and assesses learning via text messages.
settingCommunity sample from Vanderbilt Brain Injury Patient Registry in Nashville, TN, USA.
participants20 adults with chronic, moderate-severe TBI and 20 non-injured comparison (NC) participants matched on age, sex, and education.
designIn this crossover study, participants used MEMI for two weeks: one in which they completed all learning in a single session to approximate standard memory rehabilitation (Blocked schedule) and one in which retrievals were spaced in short, twice-daily sessions (Spaced, intended delivery schedule). MAIN MEASURES: The primary pilot outcomes were feasibility (session engagement) and acceptability (Acceptability of Intervention Measure). In a preliminary analysis, we also assessed delayed free recall of trained information. We also report supplementary data on participant surveys and cued recall.
resultsParticipants in both groups were highly engaged and rated the tool as acceptable. On average, the TBI group rated acceptability of the Spaced schedule higher than the Blocked schedule. Both groups remembered more words at the end of the week in the Spaced schedule (TBI: t (17) = 4.37, p <.001, 95% CI [2.79, 7.99]; NC: t (19) = 8.57, p <.001, 95% CI[5.13, 8.46]).
conclusionsIn this pilot study, spaced retrieval via MEMI was feasible and acceptable for adults with chronic TBI. MEMI has potential as a memory assessment and intervention tool in both therapeutic and research contexts. Future work should include a larger trial to assess MEMI's efficacy, clinical utility, individual differences, and personalizing content.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.