Background: Previous studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of paging systems in compensating for everyday memory and planning problems after brain injury, including in individuals with traumatic brain injury (TBI).
Methods: Here, in addition to further analyses of the TBI data from a previous randomised control crossover trial, results are reported from a sub-group of 36 participants with brain injury from cerebrovascular accident (CVA).
Results: Results indicate that, as with the TBI group, the pager was effective. However, the pattern of results following cessation of treatment differed. At a group level, TBI participants demonstrated maintenance of pager-related benefits, whereas CVA participants’ performance returned to baseline levels. Comparisons of demographic and neuropsychological characteristics of the groups showed that the CVA group was older, had a shorter interval post-injury, and had poorer executive function than the TBI group. Furthermore, within the TBI group, maintenance was associated with executive functioning, such that executive dysfunction impeded maintenance. This correlation remained after controlling for demographic differences between groups.
Conclusions: Together, these findings suggest that executive dysfunction may affect treatment—for example, whether or not temporary use of the pager is sufficient to establish a subsequently self-sustaining routine.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Competing interests: None.
↵i The group sizes differ as randomisation of the larger sample was not stratified by aetiology.
↵ii Within the CVA group, this consisted of one participant with an outlying T2–T3 score, one with missing T3 data and two who failed to show significant pager-related benefits at T2. Within the TBI group, two participants were excluded due to outlying T2–T3 scores, six due to missing T3 data and six as they showed no significant benefit at T2.