Descriptions of memory rehabilitation group interventions for neurological conditions: a systematic review

Abstract

A note on versions:The version presented here may differ from the published version or from the version of record. If you wish to cite this item you are advised to consult the publisher's version. Please see the repository url above for details on accessing the published version and note that access may require a subscription. Review methods: Articles were included if the sample were adults with a neurological disorder, the intervention was group-based cognitive rehabilitation for memory problems, and if the study was a randomised controlled trial. Articles were independently screened for inclusion and data extracted by two researchers, with the third researcher arbitrating any disputes.Results: Fourteen studies were included in this review. The reporting of certain aspects of an intervention was found to be poor, particularly in relation to: duration of the programme (6 of 14 studies did not report), the development of the intervention (7 of 14 studies did not discuss), and the content and structure of intervention (7 of the 14 studies did not provide details Review methods: Articles were included if the sample were adults with a neurological disorder, the intervention was group-based cognitive rehabilitation for memory problems, and if the study was a randomised controlled trial. Articles were independently screened for inclusion and data extracted by two researchers, with the third researcher arbitrating any disputes.Results: Fourteen studies were included in this review. The reporting of certain aspects of an intervention was found to be poor, particularly in relation to: duration of the programme (6 of 14 studies did not report), the development of the intervention (7 of 14 studies did not discuss), and the content and structure of intervention (7 of the 14 studies did not provide details).Conclusion: This review found that the overall reporting of memory rehabilitation content and format is poor.Refinement and adaption of pre-existing checklists to capture aspects of cognitive rehabilitation programmes may help authors when reporting complex interventions. A draft checklist is provided that could be refined and validated in further research.

A group memory rehabilitation programme for people with traumatic brain injuries: the ReMemBrIn RCT

“…We have reported the trial in line with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guidelines 144 and the content, format and delivery of the intervention in line with the TIDieR 131 and other relevant guidelines. 130 This should enable other researchers who wish to replicate this study to deliver the intervention as we have.…”

“…One reason for this is that primary studies do not always provide sufficient details of interventions. 130 We expect that reporting guidelines such as the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide 131 and other more specific guidelines for reporting group memory rehabilitation programmes 130 will improve the reporting of these interventions. Therefore, it seems that more Phase II studies are needed to optimise the recruitment of suitable participants and to provide the optimum format of the intervention before progressing to a Phase III trial.…”

Evaluating Cognitive Rehabilitation in Multiple Sclerosis: On the Bumpy Road to Establishing Evidence

“…Quality of reporting of trials of complex interventions has perhaps improved with the adoption of the CONSORT statement [27], but cognitive rehabilitation has been insufficiently described by trialists [28,29]. This makes it difficult for researchers to replicate studies and for clinicians to implement them in practice.…”

“…This makes it difficult for researchers to replicate studies and for clinicians to implement them in practice. The recently published Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist [30] and more cognitive rehabilitation-specific guidelines [28,29] may improve the quality of reporting such interventions, particularly if journal editors recommend that such guidance is followed.…”

Reporting on novel complex intervention development for adults with social communication impairments after acquired brain injury

“…Whilst treatment regime and dose were relatively well reported, van Heugten and colleagues [1] systematic review of 95 randomised trials of cognitive rehabilitation for adults with ABI found very little information reported on intervention content. A smaller review of 14 randomised trials of memory rehabilitation group interventions for neurological conditions [2] found intervention development, duration, group size and composition, and the content and structure were particularly poorly reported. Within speech pathology, a recent review of 162 randomised controlled trials of various interventions found better reporting of intervention regime (largely intervention delivery) and poorer (less) reporting of intervention content [3].…”