A randomized practical behavioural trial of curriculum-based advocacy training for individuals with traumatic brain injury and their families

Allen W Brown, Anne M. Moessner, Thomas Bergquist, Kathryn S. Kendall, Nancy N. Diehl, Jayawant Mandrekar

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

8 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Primary objective: To test whether a curriculum-based advocacy training programme improves advocacy behaviour when compared to a matched group engaged in self-directed advocacy activities. Research design: Community-based randomized practical behavioural trial. Methods and procedures: Adults with moderate–severe TBI 1 or more years post-injury and their family members were recruited in Minnesota (4 years), Iowa and Wisconsin (each 3 years) and randomized into a curriculum-based or self-directed advocacy training group. Both groups met on the same day, at separate locations in the same city, once per month for 4 consecutive months. Main outcomes and results: Pre–post written and video testimony were rated using the Advocacy Behaviour Rating Scale (ABRS). Mean ABRS scores increased after intervention in both groups (curriculum n = 129, self-directed n = 128), but there was no significant difference in this increase between groups. When groups were combined, a significant pre–post improvement in mean ABRS scores was observed. Conclusions: Curriculum-based advocacy training was not superior to a self-directed approach in improving ABRS scores. A significant improvement in expression of an advocacy message was observed when intervention groups were combined. These findings suggest that bringing together like-minded motivated individuals is more important than programme structure or content in changing advocacy behaviour.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalBrain Injury
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - Oct 12 2015

Fingerprint

Curriculum
Research Design
Education
Behavior Rating Scale
Traumatic Brain Injury
Advocacy
Wounds and Injuries
Rating Scales

Keywords

  • Consumer advocacy
  • government agencies
  • local government
  • patient advocacy
  • rehabilitation

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Clinical Neurology
  • Arts and Humanities (miscellaneous)
  • Developmental and Educational Psychology

Cite this

@article{23a9159ad52a42abb0db79b786948ff0,
title = "A randomized practical behavioural trial of curriculum-based advocacy training for individuals with traumatic brain injury and their families",
abstract = "Primary objective: To test whether a curriculum-based advocacy training programme improves advocacy behaviour when compared to a matched group engaged in self-directed advocacy activities. Research design: Community-based randomized practical behavioural trial. Methods and procedures: Adults with moderate–severe TBI 1 or more years post-injury and their family members were recruited in Minnesota (4 years), Iowa and Wisconsin (each 3 years) and randomized into a curriculum-based or self-directed advocacy training group. Both groups met on the same day, at separate locations in the same city, once per month for 4 consecutive months. Main outcomes and results: Pre–post written and video testimony were rated using the Advocacy Behaviour Rating Scale (ABRS). Mean ABRS scores increased after intervention in both groups (curriculum n = 129, self-directed n = 128), but there was no significant difference in this increase between groups. When groups were combined, a significant pre–post improvement in mean ABRS scores was observed. Conclusions: Curriculum-based advocacy training was not superior to a self-directed approach in improving ABRS scores. A significant improvement in expression of an advocacy message was observed when intervention groups were combined. These findings suggest that bringing together like-minded motivated individuals is more important than programme structure or content in changing advocacy behaviour.",
keywords = "Consumer advocacy, government agencies, local government, patient advocacy, rehabilitation",
author = "Brown, {Allen W} and Moessner, {Anne M.} and Thomas Bergquist and Kendall, {Kathryn S.} and Diehl, {Nancy N.} and Jayawant Mandrekar",
year = "2015",
month = "10",
day = "12",
doi = "10.3109/02699052.2015.1075173",
language = "English (US)",
journal = "Brain Injury",
issn = "0269-9052",
publisher = "Informa Healthcare",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A randomized practical behavioural trial of curriculum-based advocacy training for individuals with traumatic brain injury and their families

AU - Brown, Allen W

AU - Moessner, Anne M.

AU - Bergquist, Thomas

AU - Kendall, Kathryn S.

AU - Diehl, Nancy N.

AU - Mandrekar, Jayawant

PY - 2015/10/12

Y1 - 2015/10/12

N2 - Primary objective: To test whether a curriculum-based advocacy training programme improves advocacy behaviour when compared to a matched group engaged in self-directed advocacy activities. Research design: Community-based randomized practical behavioural trial. Methods and procedures: Adults with moderate–severe TBI 1 or more years post-injury and their family members were recruited in Minnesota (4 years), Iowa and Wisconsin (each 3 years) and randomized into a curriculum-based or self-directed advocacy training group. Both groups met on the same day, at separate locations in the same city, once per month for 4 consecutive months. Main outcomes and results: Pre–post written and video testimony were rated using the Advocacy Behaviour Rating Scale (ABRS). Mean ABRS scores increased after intervention in both groups (curriculum n = 129, self-directed n = 128), but there was no significant difference in this increase between groups. When groups were combined, a significant pre–post improvement in mean ABRS scores was observed. Conclusions: Curriculum-based advocacy training was not superior to a self-directed approach in improving ABRS scores. A significant improvement in expression of an advocacy message was observed when intervention groups were combined. These findings suggest that bringing together like-minded motivated individuals is more important than programme structure or content in changing advocacy behaviour.

AB - Primary objective: To test whether a curriculum-based advocacy training programme improves advocacy behaviour when compared to a matched group engaged in self-directed advocacy activities. Research design: Community-based randomized practical behavioural trial. Methods and procedures: Adults with moderate–severe TBI 1 or more years post-injury and their family members were recruited in Minnesota (4 years), Iowa and Wisconsin (each 3 years) and randomized into a curriculum-based or self-directed advocacy training group. Both groups met on the same day, at separate locations in the same city, once per month for 4 consecutive months. Main outcomes and results: Pre–post written and video testimony were rated using the Advocacy Behaviour Rating Scale (ABRS). Mean ABRS scores increased after intervention in both groups (curriculum n = 129, self-directed n = 128), but there was no significant difference in this increase between groups. When groups were combined, a significant pre–post improvement in mean ABRS scores was observed. Conclusions: Curriculum-based advocacy training was not superior to a self-directed approach in improving ABRS scores. A significant improvement in expression of an advocacy message was observed when intervention groups were combined. These findings suggest that bringing together like-minded motivated individuals is more important than programme structure or content in changing advocacy behaviour.

KW - Consumer advocacy

KW - government agencies

KW - local government

KW - patient advocacy

KW - rehabilitation

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84944916356&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84944916356&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.3109/02699052.2015.1075173

DO - 10.3109/02699052.2015.1075173

M3 - Article

C2 - 26488141

AN - SCOPUS:84951908721

JO - Brain Injury

JF - Brain Injury

SN - 0269-9052

ER -