Efficacy of a Micro-Prompting Technology in Reducing Support Needed by People With Severe Acquired Brain Injury in Activities of Daily Living: A Randomized Control Trial

Abstract

Micro-prompting technology is an effective assistive technology for cognition, which reduces support needs in people with significant cognitive impairments.

Recent Technology-Aided Programs to Support Adaptive Responses, Functional Activities, and Leisure and Communication in People With Significant Disabilities

“…Six recent studies adopting a technology-based approach are summarized in this section (19, 21, 35, 59–61). The support tools used for helping the participants to perform the tasks varied on multiple aspects.…”

“…The support tools used for helping the participants to perform the tasks varied on multiple aspects. Yet, the studies reported below are divided into two groups based on only one of those aspects, that is, on whether the support tools were non-portable (19, 60, 61), or portable (21, 35, 59) (see Table 2).…”

“…O'Neill et al (61) reported the set up and assessment of a micro-prompting device (“Guide”) to support the morning routine of people with acquired brain injury. The Guide system involved a computer with voice tracker, speech recognition software, activity protocols and activity protocol player.…”

“…The tool developed by Mihailidis et al (19), in particular, was also capable of reorganizing the instruction sequence and the amount and type of instruction guidance so as to lead the participant to complete the task in a satisfactory manner. The tools used by Mihailidis et al (19) and by O'Neill et al (61) were fairly complex in terms of design and components. A slightly different consideration can be made for the self-prompting tool reported by Lin et al (60).…”

“…First, the tools developed by Mihailidis et al (19) and O'Neill et al (61) appear quite expensive and relatively difficult to manage [i.e., compared to the one reported by Lin et al (60)], with a potentially reduced affordability for and applicability within many contexts. Second, all support tools were tested on a single task, although the components/steps of the task reported by O'Neill et al (61) were rather large and composite. A narrow testing provides an evidence base that does not allow one to determine the versatility of the tools for other tasks.…”