Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Assistive Technology for Executive Function Support for People With Acquired Brain Injury: Protocol for Single-Case Experimental Designs.

BACKGROUND: Executive function, including prospective memory, initiating, planning, and sequencing everyday activities, is frequently affected by acquired brain injury (ABI). Executive dysfunction necessitates the use of compensatory cognitive strategies and, in more severe cases, human support over time. To compensate for the executive dysfunction experienced, growing options for electronic mainstream and assistive technologies may be used by people with ABI and their supporters. OBJECTIVE: We outline the study protocol for a series of single-case experimental designs (SCEDs) to evaluate the effectiveness of smart home, mobile, and/or wearable technologies in reducing executive function difficulties following ABI. METHODS: Up to 10 adults with ABI who experience executive dysfunction and have sufficient cognitive capacity to provide informed consent will be recruited across Victoria and New South Wales, Australia. Other key inclusion criteria are that they have substantial support needs for everyday living and reside in community dwellings. On the basis of the participant's identified goal(s) and target behavior(s), a specific electronic assistive technology will be selected for application. Both identification of the target behavior(s) and selection of the assistive technology will be determined via consultation with each participant (and their key support person, if applicable). The choice of SCED will be individualized for each participant based on the type of technology used in the intervention, the difficulty level of the behavior targeted for change, and the anticipated rate of change. For each SCED, repeated measurements of the target behavior(s) during the baseline condition will provide performance data for comparison with the performance data collected during the intervention condition (with technology introduced). Secondary outcome measures will evaluate the impact of the intervention. The protocol includes 2 customizable Microsoft Excel spreadsheets for electronic record keeping. RESULTS: Recruitment period is June 2022 through March 2024. Trial results for the individual participants will be graphed and analyzed separately using structured visual analysis supplemented with statistical analysis. Analysis will focus on important features of the data, including both within- and between-phase comparisons for response level, trend, variability, immediacy, consistency, and overlap. An exploratory economic evaluation will determine the impact on formal and informal support usage, together with quality of life, following the implementation of the new technological intervention. CONCLUSIONS: The study has been designed to test the cause-effect functional relationships between the intervention-in this case, electronic assistive technology-and its effect in changing the target behavior(s). The evaluation evidence gained will offer new insights into the application of various electronic assistive technologies for people who experience executive dysfunction following ABI. Furthermore, the results will help increase the capacity of key stakeholders to harness the potential of technology to build independence and reduce the cost of care for this population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) ACTRN12622000835741, https://www.anzctr.org.au/ACTRN12622000835741.aspx. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/48503.

'Yes, I've got the job, but my challenge is keeping the job': an evaluation of a new pathway to open employment to meet the needs of people with acquired brain injury in Australia.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: In Australia, people with disability continue to experience low employment rates (48%), compared to the national average (79%), and employment is even lower (30%) for people with acquired brain injury (ABI). This paper evaluates a pilot study of a new mainstream employment pathway following ABI, called Employment CoLab. METHOD: Employment CoLab was piloted across multiple industries using a mix of reasonable employer adjustments, insurance-funded supports and/or access to capacity-building supports. Semi-structured interviews were undertaken with four stakeholders; (1) Employees with ABI (n = 5, age 31-49 years, time since injury M(R) = 11(4-26) years); (2) Employers/co-workers (n = 3); (3) Allied health professionals/vocational providers (n = 4); and (4) Injury insurance funders who hold portfolio responsibility for disability employment (n = 5). An explorative economic evaluation was also conducted to compare the cost to the funder for Employment CoLab compared to traditional employment pathways. RESULTS: Employment CoLab offered a new approach for people with ABI to gain and sustain open employment. Four major themes were identified from participant interviews: valuing employment and diversity; barriers to mainstream employment; reflections on being employed; and being supported over time. The economic evaluation was unable to detect if the pathway was, or was not, less costly when compared to traditional employment pathways. CONCLUSIONS: Employment CoLab is a person-centred collaborative approach which, together with effective social disability insurance approaches, has built new opportunities for inclusive mainstream economic participation following ABI.

Behaviour support for people with acquired brain injury within the National Disability Insurance Scheme: an Australian survey of the provider market.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: People with acquired brain injury (ABI) may experience behaviours of concern that require therapy services, including behaviour support. In Australia, the implementation of a National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) and development of the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission, has led to significant changes to behaviour support workforce processes, and the way behaviour support is funded, regulated and delivered to people with ABI who are Scheme participants. The aim of this study was to explore the current and future provider market of professionals providing behaviour supports to Scheme participants who experience ABI. METHOD: An anonymous survey was designed and distributed via social media channels, an email listserv and professional association newsletters to professionals working within the NDIS in Australia. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics and content analysis. RESULTS: One hundred and two surveys responses were analysed. A majority of professionals had an average understanding of the NDIS Quality and Safeguard Commission rules and policies on behaviour support. Responses to current and future registration as an NDIS Practitioner indicated the workforce gap could increase by between 17 and 26%. Respondents also raised concerns about the lack of training and experience of allied health professional students and graduates in addressing behaviours of concern. Responses to the open-ended question highlighted additional issues in the provision of behaviour support within the NDIS. CONCLUSIONS: This research highlighted the need for an NDIS behaviour support workforce strategy and supply-side market intervention to ensure a viable and sustainable workforce for people with ABI who need behaviour support.