Allen W Brown1, Anne M Moessner1, Thomas F Bergquist2, Kathryn S Kendall1, Nancy N Diehl3, Jay Mandrekar4. 1. a Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation , Mayo Clinic , Rochester , MN , USA . 2. b Department of Psychiatry and Psychology , Mayo Clinic , Rochester , MN , USA . 3. c Department of Health Science Research , Mayo Clinic , Jacksonville , FL , USA , and. 4. d Division of Biomedical Statistics and Informatics and Department of Neurology , Mayo Clinic , Rochester , MN , USA.
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 acurriculum-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.
RCT Entities:
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.
Entities:
Keywords:
Consumer advocacy; government agencies; local government; patient advocacy; rehabilitation
Authors: Paula Kersten; Christine Cummins; Nicola Kayes; Duncan Babbage; Hinemoa Elder; Allison Foster; Mark Weatherall; Richard John Siegert; Greta Smith; Kathryn McPherson Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2018-10-10 Impact factor: 2.692