ArticlePilot and feasibility studies2026
Continuity Therapy for couples living with acquired brain injury: a non-randomised uncontrolled feasibility study.
Article in Pilot and feasibility studies, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBrain injuries can have a significant negative impact on marriages/partnerships. Available interventions either require specialists trained in relationship therapy (which most rehabilitation services have no access to) or offer more structured manualised approaches that are restricted in scope and have generally led to only small improvements. Continuity Therapy was developed to provide a manualised approach that can be delivered by brain injury clinicians without specialist training in relationship therapy, and that addresses a broader range of relationship issues. Study aims were to complete a preliminary evaluation of the benefits of the therapy to determine whether progression to a randomised controlled trial is justified; to obtain feedback that will be used to refine the therapy; and to evaluate selection criteria and patient-reported outcome measures.
methodsFifteen couples living with brain injury received the therapy. They completed questionnaires about their relationship and psychological wellbeing before and after the therapy, and at 3-month follow-up, and rated how helpful they found the therapy. They and the therapists were also interviewed (or provided written feedback) about their experience of the therapy. Criteria about progression to an RCT were established in terms of numbers showing statistically reliable improvement on relationship questionnaires, ratings of helpfulness, and non-completion rates.
resultsProgression criteria were met. Although not everyone benefitted, participants showed a mean large effect improvement on post-therapy questionnaires about their relationship, and this was sustained at 3 months. They showed a mean moderate effect improvement in their psychological wellbeing, again sustained at 3 months. Couples and therapists made suggestions about improvements to the therapy, the circumstances of couples that may impact the effectiveness of the therapy (relevant to selection criteria), and the suitability of outcome measures.
conclusionsEffect sizes should be treated with caution because of the limitations of the study. Nevertheless, the therapy showed sufficient promise to support progression to an RCT. A broader range of outcome measures is required to capture the benefits of the therapy for the relationship. Refinement of the selection criteria is also needed.
trial registrationThe study was registered with ISRCTN: The UK's Clinical Study Registry (registration number-93611293) on 6.6.2023.
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.