Brain InjuriesCICINCT04186182
Treating Chronic Symptoms of Pediatric Acquired Brain Injury - a Feasibility Study
A study testing CICI - Feasibility trial study group in people with Brain Injuries and Brain Diseases, run by Sunnaas Rehabilitation Hospital at 1 site in Norway.
Trial summary
Children with acquired brain injury (ABI) often struggle with complex impairments, including cognitive (such as memory and attention), social, emotional and behavioral challenges. There is broad agreement that there is a lack of evidence-based knowledge about rehabilitation for children with ABI in the chronic phase. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 6 to 15 years
- Conditions the study is for
- Brain Injuries, Brain Diseases, Family
- What is being tested?
- CICI - Feasibility trial study group
- Type of treatment
- Lifestyle or therapy programme
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 6 participants
- Where
- 1 siteNorway
- Study dates
- 1 Aug 2020to 31 Jan 2021
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 6 to 15 years
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Child
Who may be able to join
- School-aged (6-15 years) children with clinical ABI-diagnosis and CT/MRI verified injury-related intracranial abnormalities, 1 year or more after injury. We anticipate including patients with the following etiologies: TBI, cerebrovascular incidents, anoxia, encephalitis and non-progressive brain tumors.
- The above-mentioned children, and/or their parents, report ABI-related cognitive, emotional, or behavioral problems that affect participation in activities with family, friends, school and/or community.
- The children attend school regularly, with or without injury-related adaptations.
- The family is able and willing to actively participate in a goal-oriented approach
Who cannot join
- Patients with severe pre- or comorbid neurological or neuropsychiatric disorders that would confound assessment and/or treatment outcomes.
- Patients with brain tumors in active treatment or at great risk of relapse.
- Patients with severe psychiatric illness or children with injuries so severe that they are in institutionalized care.
- Children in custody of the child protection services.
- Parental severe psychiatric illness, drug abuse or indications of a history of or risk of domestic violence.
- The family is not fluent in Norwegian
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
Official title: The Child-In-Context-Intervention (CICI): The Feasibility of a Study Protocol for Treatment of Chronic Symptoms of Pediatric Acquired Brain Injury
Children with acquired brain injury (ABI) often struggle with complex impairments, including cognitive (such as memory and attention), social, emotional and behavioral challenges. There is broad agreement that there is a lack of evidence-based knowledge about rehabilitation for children with ABI in the chronic phase. The current study is a feasibility study of a planned randomized controlled trial (RCT), the CICI-intervention, directed towards children with ABI and their families in the chronic phase. The feasibility study aims to evaluate the study protocol, the assessment procedures and the technical solutions prior to performing the RCT.
A feasibility study with six participating children and families will be conducted in close collaboration with schools and local health care providers. The intervention to be tested (the CICI-intervention) focuses on the child's and family's individually identified target outcome areas to be addressed, with corresponding rehabilitation goals. The intervention aims to enhance everyday functioning in the home and school environment by reducing ABI-related symptoms, and by attaining rehabilitation goals in areas noted as challenging by the participants. In the future RCT-study the efficacy of the CICI-intervention will be measured in terms of goal attainment, community participation, cognitive, behavioral, social, and family functioning.
Read the detailed description
There is considerable knowledge about how to help children with ABI during the first, acute and post-acute stages. Yet, impairments are often long lasting and, due to the vulnerability of children's developing brain, new problems may emerge or become increasingly problematic over time. Children with ABI may struggle at school and with peers, which can lead to or increase emotional difficulties, and reduce quality of life, affecting the children and their families. The local communities and the children's schools are, together with the families, often left responsible for dealing with the chronic challenges of pABI. Parents may experience considerable stress and develop emotional symptoms when a child suffers an ABI. As a result, the entire family may experience impaired function, which in turn may affect the long-term prognosis of the child with ABI.
In this feasibility study, six children between 6 and 15 years will be included. The children will have a clinical ABI diagnosis, verified injury related intracranial abnormalities, and be more than one year post injury at inclusion. The child and/or their family must report enduring cognitive, emotional, social or physical challenges related to the brain injury. The intervention will be conducted in collaboration with the children's families, schools and their local care providers. It consists of individualized goal-oriented strategies adapted to the home- and school-setting. Goal attainment scaling will be applied. In addition, psychoeducation will be provided to the family and school/local care providers on topics related to the child's injury. Parent group sessions will be held for discussions and knowledge transfer concerning family challenges after a pABI, such as communication skills and parenting. The intervention will include 7 individualized meetings with the family (2 home visits + 5 videoconferences), 2 parent group sessions and 4 meetings with school and local care providers during a period of 4-5 months.
This feasibility study primarily aims to evaluate adherence to the CICI study protocol, responsiveness of participants and therapists, and the usefulness of the intervention. Furthermore, recruitment procedures, assessment protocol, goal setting and the technical solutions will be evaluated. A questionnaire developed for this project will be used to assess the families' satisfaction with the intervention as well as the acceptability of the intervention to families and therapists, while checklists, logs and qualitative interviews will be used to assess the remaining outcomes. Assessments in the future RCT will be conducted at baseline (T1), at the end of the intervention (T2, 4-5 months after inclusion) and one year after inclusion (T3). In the feasibility study, T1 and T2 will be included, as this is considered sufficient to evaluate feasibility of the study protocol as such.
The primary outcomes of the CICI-intervention in the future RCT-study, will be:
- severity of brain injury symptoms (Health and Behavior Inventory - HBI),
- the child's quality of life (The Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory - Peds-QL), and
- parenting self-efficacy (Tool to Measure Parenting Self-Efficacy - TOPSE/Teens TOPSE).
Secondary outcome measures of the CICI-intervention in the future RCT-study, will be:
- changes in self- and parental perceived severity of the individually defined target outcome areas (measured on a 5-point Likert scale),
- goal attainment scaling in the CICI group (Goal Attainment Scaling - GAS),
- emotional symptoms of the children (Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL), Teacher Report Form (TRF) and Youth Self-report (YSR))
- emotional symptoms of the parents (Patient Health Questionnaire 9 - PHQ-9 and Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7 - GAD-7),
- children's executive functioning in the home and school environment (Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function 2 - BRIEF-2),
- participation (The Child and Adolescent Scale of Participation - CASP),
- global outcome after pABI (Glasgow Outcome Scale Extended Pediatric Version - GOS-E Peds),
- parental stress (Parental Stress Scale - PSS)
- family functioning (Family Assessment Device - FAD), and
- unmet healthcare needs of the family (The Family Needs Questionnaire - Pediatric version - FNQ-P).
In addition, the neuropsychological screening battery performed at baseline in the future RCT-study will consist of the following test measures: Similarities, Matrix Reasoning, Coding, Digit Span from the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-V, Inhibition and Comprehension of Instructions from Nepsy-II, the Children's Communication Checklist-2 questionnaire and the Children's Auditory Verbal Learning Test-2.
October 27, 2020: This feasibility study was recruiting and in early stages when the Covid-19 pandemic forced a halt in the study in March 2020. The insecurity of the situation caused us not to register the study as suspended, as we hoped from week to week that we would be able to continue. However, the pandemic resulted in a total halt, and reopening of the entire study in august 2020. The new timeline has been adjusted accordingly in the clinical trials.gov records.
- Conditions
- Brain Injuries, Brain Diseases, Family, Child
- Being tested
- CICI - Feasibility trial study group
- Keywords
- Rehabilitation
- Medical subject headings
- Brain Injuries, Brain Diseases
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
CICI - Feasibility trial study groupBehavioural
Also called The CICI protocol
The intervention will include 7 individualized meetings with the family (2 home visits + 5 videoconferences), 2 parent group sessions and 4 meetings with school and local care providers, delivered over a 4-5 month period.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| CICI - Feasibility trial study group | Other | The feasibility of the entire CICI-protocol will be evaluated. See details above. Receives: Behavioral: CICI - Feasibility trial study group |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Protocol adherence assessed by study-specific checklists
The therapists will monitor discrepancies between intervention delivery and the CICI-manual by using extensive checklists relating to each of the intervention sessions. The number of non-delivered treatment components will be counted, and the percentage of deviation will be calculated compared to the total number of treatment components.
High feasibility: 15 % deviation or less, Moderate feasibility: 15-25 % deviation, Low feasibility: > 25 % deviation
Measured: Will be evaluated after the intervention period, i.e. 4-5 months after inclusion.
Child Responsiveness to the intervention assessed by ratings on the study specific Acceptability Scale.
The acceptability Scale is rated on a scale from 0 ("Completely disagree") to 4 ("Completely agree"). The total mean score on the Responsiveness subscale (6 items) on the Acceptability Scale, rated by the child, will determine child responsiveness. The responsiveness subscale consists of the following items (the wording adapted to the child's age): I would recommend participating in the study to others, the therapist was warm and understanding, I trusted the therapist, I had the opportunity to state my opinions about the therapist's suggestions, my opinions were taken seriously, I was given sufficient information during the study about the work we were doing.
High feasibility: Mean score ≥ 3 ("Agree"), Moderate feasibility: Mean score ≥ 2 and < 3, Low feasibility: < 2.
Measured: Will be evaluated after the intervention period, i.e. 4-5 months after inclusion.
Caregiver Responsiveness to the intervention assessed by ratings on the study specific Acceptability Scale.
The acceptability Scale is rated on a scale from 0 ("Completely disagree") to 4 ("Completely agree"). The total mean score on the Responsiveness subscale (6 items) on the Acceptability Scale, rated by the caregiver, will determine caregiver responsiveness. The responsiveness subscale consists if the following items: I would recommend participating in the study to others, the therapist was warm and understanding, I trusted the therapist, I had the opportunity to state my opinions about the therapist's suggestions, my opinions were taken seriously, I was given sufficient information during the study about the work we were doing.
High feasibility: Mean score ≥ 3 ("Agree"), Moderate feasibility: Mean score ≥ 2 and < 3, Low feasibility: < 2.
Measured: Will be evaluated after the intervention period, i.e. 4-5 months after inclusion.
a. Usefulness of the intervention assessed by child ratings on the study-specific Acceptability Scale for this study
The acceptability Scale is rated on a scale from 0 ("Completely disagree") to 4 ("Completely agree"). The total mean score on the Usefulness subscale (6 items) in the Acceptability Scale will determine perceived usefulness of the intervention. The child version of the usefulness subscale consists of the following items: The program has helped me, the program has helped my family, I would recommend participating in the program to others, I have learned something new that helps me, I have learned more about what I struggle with after the injury, I have learned what I can say to others about what I struggle with due to the injury.
High feasibility: Mean score ≥ 3 ("Agree"), Moderate feasibility: Mean score ≥ 2 and < 3, Low feasibility: < 2.
Measured: Will be evaluated after the intervention period, i.e. 4-5 months after inclusion.
b. Usefulness of the intervention assessed by caregiver ratings on the study-specific Acceptability Scale for this study.
The acceptability Scale is rated on a scale from 0 ("Completely disagree") to 4 ("Completely agree"). The total mean score on the Usefulness subscale (9 items) in the Acceptability Scale will determine perceived usefulness of the intervention. The caregiver version of the usefulness subscale consists of the following items:
The program has helped my child, the program has helped my family, the program has helped me, I would recommend participating in the program to others, I have gained more insight into my child´s challenges, I will use my new knowledge in the future, I have used my new knowledge in other settings, I found it useful to meet other families who are in a similar situation as we are, the school meetings were useful.
High feasibility: Mean score ≥ 3 ("Agree"), Moderate feasibility: Mean score ≥ 2 and < 3, Low feasibility: < 2.
Measured: Will be evaluated after the intervention period, i.e. 4-5 months after inclusion.
Secondary outcomes (15)
Recruitment procedures assessed by a) consent rate
The therapist will log consent rate of families and schools. High feasibility: ≥ 30%, Moderate feasibility: 15-29%, Low feasibility: <15%
Measured: Will be evaluated after the intervention period, i.e. 4-5 months after inclusion.
Recruitment procedures assessed by b) duration of phone calls and screening interview per family
Therapist will record duration of recruitment procedures, hereunder the telephone screening interview and other telephone calls. High feasibility: 3 hours or less, Moderate feasibility: ˃3 and ≤5 hours, Low feasibility: >5 hours
Measured: Will be evaluated after the intervention period, i.e. 4-5 months after inclusion.
Recruitment procedures assessed by c) the number of participants excluded at or after baseline
High feasibility: One family excluded at or after baseline, Moderate feasibility: Two families excluded at or after baseline, Low feasibility: More than two families excluded at or after baseline
Measured: Will be evaluated after the intervention period, i.e. 4-5 months after inclusion.
Recruitment procedures assessed by d) the number of families that completed the whole intervention
Description: Number of families out of six that participate in the first intervention meeting (after baseline) and complete the entire intervention.
High feasibility: Six families completed the intervention, Moderate feasibility: Five families completed the intervention, Low feasibility: Four or fewer families completed the intervention
Measured: Will be evaluated after the intervention period, i.e. 4-5 months after inclusion.
The burden of the assessment protocol for the child, reported by the child on the study-specific Acceptability Scale.
The acceptability Scale is rated on a scale from 0 ("Completely disagree") to 4 ("Completely agree"). The total mean score on the following four items in the Acceptability Scale will determine the child burden of the assessment protocol: If the child was comfortable being tested and if the child was comfortable expressing his/her symptoms and opinions through the questionnaires, if the child understood the questionnaires and if the assessment made the child tired.
High feasibility: Mean score ≥ 3 ("Agree"), Moderate feasibility: Mean score ≥ 2 and < 3, Low feasibility: < 2.
Measured: Will be evaluated after the intervention period, i.e. 4-5 months after inclusion.
The burden of the assessment protocol for the child, reported by caregivers on the study-specific Acceptability Scale.
The acceptability Scale is rated on a scale from 0 ("Completely disagree") to 4 ("Completely agree"). The total mean score on the following four items in the Acceptability Scale will determine the child burden of the assessment protocol perceived by the caregiver: If the child was comfortable being tested, if the child was comfortable expressing his/her symptoms and opinions through the questionnaires, if the child understood the questionnaires and if the assessment made the child tired.
High feasibility: Mean score ≥ 3 ("Agree"), Moderate feasibility: Mean score ≥ 2 and < 3, Low feasibility: < 2.
Measured: Will be evaluated after the intervention period, i.e. 4-5 months after inclusion.
The burden of the assessment protocol for the caregivers, reported by caregivers on the study-specific Acceptability Scale.
Description: The acceptability Scale is rated on a scale from 0 ("Completely disagree") to 4 ("Completely agree"). The following item in the Acceptability Scale will determine the caregiver burden of the assessment protocol: There were too many questionnaires.
High feasibility: Mean score ≥ 3 ("Agree"), Moderate feasibility: Mean score ≥ 2 and < 3, Low feasibility: < 2.
Measured: Will be evaluated after the intervention period, i.e. 4-5 months after inclusion.
Caregiver reported relevance of topics in questionnaires
The acceptability Scale is rated on a scale from 0 ("Completely disagree") to 4 ("Completely agree"). The caregivers' perceived relevance of the topics in caregiver-questionnaires will be measured with two items on the Acceptability Scale: I was able to give important information through the questionnaires, the questionnaires were not relevant for me. Mean score will be calculated.
High feasibility: Mean score ≥ 3 ("Agree"), Moderate feasibility: Mean score ≥ 2 and < 3, Low feasibility: < 2.
Measured: Will be evaluated after the intervention period, i.e. 4-5 months after inclusion.
Therapist reported burden of the baseline assessment measured by the duration of the assessment.
The therapist will record the duration of the baseline assessment through logs. High feasibility: ≤ 3hours, Moderate feasibility: ˃3 hours and ˂4 hours, Low feasibility: ≥4 hours
Measured: Will be evaluated after the intervention period, i.e. 4-5 months after inclusion.
The perceived relevance of working with SMART-goals as rated by caregivers on the study-specific Acceptability Scale.
The acceptability Scale is rated on a scale from 0 ("Completely disagree") to 4 ("Completely agree"). The perceived relevance of working with SMART-goals for the caregivers will be measured with three items on the Acceptability Scale ("The goals we set were important", "The strategies we used for working towards the goals have helped my family", "The strategies we used for working towards the goals have helped my child"). Mean score will be calculated.
High feasibility: Mean score ≥ 3 ("Agree"), Moderate feasibility: Mean score ≥ 2 and < 3, Low feasibility: < 2.
Measured: Will be evaluated after the intervention period, i.e. 4-5 months after inclusion.
The perceived relevance of working with SMART-goals rated by the child on the study-specific Acceptability Scale.
The acceptability Scale is rated on a scale from 0 ("Completely disagree") to 4 ("Completely agree"). The perceived relevance of working with SMART-goals for the child will be measured with one item on the Acceptability Scale ("The goals we set were important").
High feasibility: Mean score ≥ 3 ("Agree"), Moderate feasibility: Mean score ≥ 2 and < 3, Low feasibility: < 2.
Measured: Will be evaluated after the intervention period, i.e. 4-5 months after inclusion.
Therapist-recorded technical failures in using videoconference in treatment delivery assessed by a study-specific log.
The therapist records the number of sessions interrupted due to technical failure, per family.
High feasibility: Restart of equipment in 0-1 sessions per family, Moderate feasibility: Restart of equipment in 2-3 sessions per family, Low feasibility: Restart of equipment in 4-5 sessions per family.
Measured: Will be evaluated after the intervention period, i.e. 4-5 months after inclusion.
Therapist-recorded time spent on installment of the equipment for using videoconference in treatment delivery
The therapist will record the time spent on installing the technical equipment for video conference use, including software, per family.
High feasibility: Installment completed in ≤ 20 minutes in one go, Moderate feasibility: Installment completed in > 20 minutes in one go, Low feasibility: Additional visit required to complete installment.
Measured: Will be evaluated after the intervention period, i.e. 4-5 months after inclusion.
Experienced quality of communication in using videoconference in treatment delivery, assessed by the Acceptability scale.
The study-specific acceptability Scale is rated on a scale from 0 ("Completely disagree") to 4 ("Completely agree") and includes one question concerning the quality of communication through videoconference. The wording is adapted to the children's age, and the children, their parents, and the therapists will rate the question. The mean score will be calculated.
High feasibility: Mean score ≥ 3 ("Agree"), Moderate feasibility: Mean score ≥ 2 and < 3, Low feasibility: < 2 on the item assessing quality of communication through videoconference.
Measured: Will be evaluated after the intervention period, i.e. 4-5 months after inclusion.
Semi-structured qualitative interviews with all participating children, caregivers and teachers will be conducted to elaborate aspects of feasibility as described above.
Explored topics: responsiveness to the intervention, usefulness of the intervention, the perceived relevance of working with SMART-goals, and experienced quality of communication in using videoconference in treatment delivery.
Measured: Will be performed after the intervention period, i.e. 4-5 months after inclusion.
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted4 Dec 2019
- Study start1 Aug 2020
- Primary completion31 Dec 2020
- Study completion31 Jan 2021
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (1)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Brain InjuriesStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Not applicable
- Intervention model
- Single group
- Model description
- This is a feasibility trial evaluating the feasibility and acceptability of a planned randomized controlled trial. Therefore, no control group will be included.
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 6 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Sunnaas Rehabilitation Hospital
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- The Research Council of Norway, Oslo University Hospital, Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, Monash University, The Hospital of Vestfold
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
- Investigators
- Marianne Løvstad, PhD, Principal investigator, Sunnaas Rehabilitation Hospital, University of Oslo
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT04186182
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- SunnaasRH
- Acronym
- CICI
- Status last verified
- Oct 2020
- First submitted
- 8 Nov 2019
- Last updated
- 8 Feb 2021
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No: Data are person sensitive and will not be openly shared.
Publications
Svendsen EJ, Killi EM, Rohrer-Baumgartner N, Holthe IL, Sandhaug M, Borgen IMH, Wade SL, Hauger SL, Lovstad M, Bragstad LK. Children's, parents', and teachers' experiences of the feasibility of a telerehabilitation intervention for children with acquired brain injury in the chronic phase - a qualitative study of acceptability and participation in the Child In Context Intervention (CICI). BMC Health Serv Res. 2023 Jun 8;23(1):603. doi: 10.1186/s12913-023-09589-z.
PubMed 37291543
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 8 Feb 2021. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- The Child-In-Context-Intervention (CICI): The Feasibility of a Study Protocol for Treatment of Chronic Symptoms of Pediatric Acquired Brain Injury
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT04186182
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- CICI / SunnaasRH
- Conditions
- Brain Injuries, Brain Diseases, Family, Child
- Keywords
- Rehabilitation
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 6 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Sunnaas Rehabilitation HospitalUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- The Research Council of Norway, Oslo University Hospital, Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, Monash University, The Hospital of Vestfold
- Study start
- 1 Aug 2020 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 31 Dec 2020 (actual)
- Study completion
- 31 Jan 2021 (actual)
- First posted
- 4 Dec 2019 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
Children with acquired brain injury (ABI) often struggle with complex impairments, including cognitive (such as memory and attention), social, emotional and behavioral challenges. There is broad agreement that there is a lack of evidence-based knowledge about rehabilitation for children with ABI in the chronic phase. The current study is a feasibility study of a planned randomized controlled trial (RCT), the CICI-intervention, directed towards children with ABI and their families in the chronic phase. The feasibility study aims to evaluate the study protocol, the assessment procedures and the technical solutions prior to performing the RCT.
A feasibility study with six participating children and families will be conducted in close collaboration with schools and local health care providers. The intervention to be tested (the CICI-intervention) focuses on the child's and family's individually identified target outcome areas to be addressed, with corresponding rehabilitation goals. The intervention aims to enhance everyday functioning in the home and school environment by reducing ABI-related symptoms, and by attaining rehabilitation goals in areas noted as challenging by the participants. In the future RCT-study the efficacy of the CICI-intervention will be measured in terms of goal attainment, community participation, cognitive, behavioral, social, and family functioning.
Detailed description
There is considerable knowledge about how to help children with ABI during the first, acute and post-acute stages. Yet, impairments are often long lasting and, due to the vulnerability of children's developing brain, new problems may emerge or become increasingly problematic over time. Children with ABI may struggle at school and with peers, which can lead to or increase emotional difficulties, and reduce quality of life, affecting the children and their families. The local communities and the children's schools are, together with the families, often left responsible for dealing with the chronic challenges of pABI. Parents may experience considerable stress and develop emotional symptoms when a child suffers an ABI. As a result, the entire family may experience impaired function, which in turn may affect the long-term prognosis of the child with ABI.
In this feasibility study, six children between 6 and 15 years will be included. The children will have a clinical ABI diagnosis, verified injury related intracranial abnormalities, and be more than one year post injury at inclusion. The child and/or their family must report enduring cognitive, emotional, social or physical challenges related to the brain injury. The intervention will be conducted in collaboration with the children's families, schools and their local care providers. It consists of individualized goal-oriented strategies adapted to the home- and school-setting. Goal attainment scaling will be applied. In addition, psychoeducation will be provided to the family and school/local care providers on topics related to the child's injury. Parent group sessions will be held for discussions and knowledge transfer concerning family challenges after a pABI, such as communication skills and parenting. The intervention will include 7 individualized meetings with the family (2 home visits + 5 videoconferences), 2 parent group sessions and 4 meetings with school and local care providers during a period of 4-5 months.
This feasibility study primarily aims to evaluate adherence to the CICI study protocol, responsiveness of participants and therapists, and the usefulness of the intervention. Furthermore, recruitment procedures, assessment protocol, goal setting and the technical solutions will be evaluated. A questionnaire developed for this project will be used to assess the families' satisfaction with the intervention as well as the acceptability of the intervention to families and therapists, while checklists, logs and qualitative interviews will be used to assess the remaining outcomes. Assessments in the future RCT will be conducted at baseline (T1), at the end of the intervention (T2, 4-5 months after inclusion) and one year after inclusion (T3). In the feasibility study, T1 and T2 will be included, as this is considered sufficient to evaluate feasibility of the study protocol as such.
The primary outcomes of the CICI-intervention in the future RCT-study, will be:
- severity of brain injury symptoms (Health and Behavior Inventory - HBI),
- the child's quality of life (The Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory - Peds-QL), and
- parenting self-efficacy (Tool to Measure Parenting Self-Efficacy - TOPSE/Teens TOPSE).
Secondary outcome measures of the CICI-intervention in the future RCT-study, will be:
- changes in self- and parental perceived severity of the individually defined target outcome areas (measured on a 5-point Likert scale),
- goal attainment scaling in the CICI group (Goal Attainment Scaling - GAS),
- emotional symptoms of the children (Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL), Teacher Report Form (TRF) and Youth Self-report (YSR))
- emotional symptoms of the parents (Patient Health Questionnaire 9 - PHQ-9 and Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7 - GAD-7),
- children's executive functioning in the home and school environment (Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function 2 - BRIEF-2),
- participation (The Child and Adolescent Scale of Participation - CASP),
- global outcome after pABI (Glasgow Outcome Scale Extended Pediatric Version - GOS-E Peds),
- parental stress (Parental Stress Scale - PSS)
- family functioning (Family Assessment Device - FAD), and
- unmet healthcare needs of the family (The Family Needs Questionnaire - Pediatric version - FNQ-P).
In addition, the neuropsychological screening battery performed at baseline in the future RCT-study will consist of the following test measures: Similarities, Matrix Reasoning, Coding, Digit Span from the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-V, Inhibition and Comprehension of Instructions from Nepsy-II, the Children's Communication Checklist-2 questionnaire and the Children's Auditory Verbal Learning Test-2.
October 27, 2020: This feasibility study was recruiting and in early stages when the Covid-19 pandemic forced a halt in the study in March 2020. The insecurity of the situation caused us not to register the study as suspended, as we hoped from week to week that we would be able to continue. However, the pandemic resulted in a total halt, and reopening of the entire study in august 2020. The new timeline has been adjusted accordingly in the clinical trials.gov records.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Not applicable
- Intervention model
- Single group
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 1
- Model description
- This is a feasibility trial evaluating the feasibility and acceptability of a planned randomized controlled trial. Therefore, no control group will be included.
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| CICI - Feasibility trial study group | Other | Behavioral: CICI - Feasibility trial study groupThe feasibility of the entire CICI-protocol will be evaluated. See details above. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 6 to 15 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Child
Key inclusion criteria (4 listed)
- School-aged (6-15 years) children with clinical ABI-diagnosis and CT/MRI verified injury-related intracranial abnormalities, 1 year or more after injury. We anticipate including patients with the following etiologies: TBI, cerebrovascular incidents, anoxia, encephalitis and non-progressive brain tumors.
- The above-mentioned children, and/or their parents, report ABI-related cognitive, emotional, or behavioral problems that affect participation in activities with family, friends, school and/or community.
- The children attend school regularly, with or without injury-related adaptations.
- The family is able and willing to actively participate in a goal-oriented approach
Key exclusion criteria (6 listed)
- Patients with severe pre- or comorbid neurological or neuropsychiatric disorders that would confound assessment and/or treatment outcomes.
- Patients with brain tumors in active treatment or at great risk of relapse.
- Patients with severe psychiatric illness or children with injuries so severe that they are in institutionalized care.
- Children in custody of the child protection services.
- Parental severe psychiatric illness, drug abuse or indications of a history of or risk of domestic violence.
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| CICI - Feasibility trial study groupAlso: The CICI protocolThe intervention will include 7 individualized meetings with the family (2 home visits + 5 videoconferences), 2 parent group sessions and 4 meetings with school and local care providers, delivered over a 4-5 month period. | Behavioural | CICI - Feasibility trial study group |
Primary outcome
Protocol adherence assessed by study-specific checklists
Time frame: Will be evaluated after the intervention period, i.e. 4-5 months after inclusion.
The therapists will monitor discrepancies between intervention delivery and the CICI-manual by using extensive checklists relating to each of the intervention sessions. The number of non-delivered treatment components will be counted, and the percentage of deviation will be calculated compared to the total number of treatment components. High feasibility: 15 % deviation or less, Moderate feasibility: 15-25 % deviation, Low feasibility: > 25 % deviation
Child Responsiveness to the intervention assessed by ratings on the study specific Acceptability Scale.
Time frame: Will be evaluated after the intervention period, i.e. 4-5 months after inclusion.
The acceptability Scale is rated on a scale from 0 ("Completely disagree") to 4 ("Completely agree"). The total mean score on the Responsiveness subscale (6 items) on the Acceptability Scale, rated by the child, will determine child responsiveness. The responsiveness subscale consists of the following items (the wording adapted to the child's age): I would recommend participating in the study to others, the therapist was warm and understanding, I trusted the therapist, I had the opportunity to state my opinions about the therapist's suggestions, my opinions were taken seriously, I was given sufficient information during the study about the work we were doing. High feasibility: Mean score ≥ 3 ("Agree"), Moderate feasibility: Mean score ≥ 2 and < 3, Low feasibility: < 2.
Caregiver Responsiveness to the intervention assessed by ratings on the study specific Acceptability Scale.
Time frame: Will be evaluated after the intervention period, i.e. 4-5 months after inclusion.
The acceptability Scale is rated on a scale from 0 ("Completely disagree") to 4 ("Completely agree"). The total mean score on the Responsiveness subscale (6 items) on the Acceptability Scale, rated by the caregiver, will determine caregiver responsiveness. The responsiveness subscale consists if the following items: I would recommend participating in the study to others, the therapist was warm and understanding, I trusted the therapist, I had the opportunity to state my opinions about the therapist's suggestions, my opinions were taken seriously, I was given sufficient information during the study about the work we were doing. High feasibility: Mean score ≥ 3 ("Agree"), Moderate feasibility: Mean score ≥ 2 and < 3, Low feasibility: < 2.
a. Usefulness of the intervention assessed by child ratings on the study-specific Acceptability Scale for this study
Time frame: Will be evaluated after the intervention period, i.e. 4-5 months after inclusion.
The acceptability Scale is rated on a scale from 0 ("Completely disagree") to 4 ("Completely agree"). The total mean score on the Usefulness subscale (6 items) in the Acceptability Scale will determine perceived usefulness of the intervention. The child version of the usefulness subscale consists of the following items: The program has helped me, the program has helped my family, I would recommend participating in the program to others, I have learned something new that helps me, I have learned more about what I struggle with after the injury, I have learned what I can say to others about what I struggle with due to the injury. High feasibility: Mean score ≥ 3 ("Agree"), Moderate feasibility: Mean score ≥ 2 and < 3, Low feasibility: < 2.
b. Usefulness of the intervention assessed by caregiver ratings on the study-specific Acceptability Scale for this study.
Time frame: Will be evaluated after the intervention period, i.e. 4-5 months after inclusion.
The acceptability Scale is rated on a scale from 0 ("Completely disagree") to 4 ("Completely agree"). The total mean score on the Usefulness subscale (9 items) in the Acceptability Scale will determine perceived usefulness of the intervention. The caregiver version of the usefulness subscale consists of the following items: The program has helped my child, the program has helped my family, the program has helped me, I would recommend participating in the program to others, I have gained more insight into my child´s challenges, I will use my new knowledge in the future, I have used my new knowledge in other settings, I found it useful to meet other families who are in a similar situation as we are, the school meetings were useful. High feasibility: Mean score ≥ 3 ("Agree"), Moderate feasibility: Mean score ≥ 2 and < 3, Low feasibility: < 2.
15 secondary outcomes
Recruitment procedures assessed by a) consent rate
Time frame: Will be evaluated after the intervention period, i.e. 4-5 months after inclusion.
Recruitment procedures assessed by b) duration of phone calls and screening interview per family
Time frame: Will be evaluated after the intervention period, i.e. 4-5 months after inclusion.
Recruitment procedures assessed by c) the number of participants excluded at or after baseline
Time frame: Will be evaluated after the intervention period, i.e. 4-5 months after inclusion.
Recruitment procedures assessed by d) the number of families that completed the whole intervention
Time frame: Will be evaluated after the intervention period, i.e. 4-5 months after inclusion.
The burden of the assessment protocol for the child, reported by the child on the study-specific Acceptability Scale.
Time frame: Will be evaluated after the intervention period, i.e. 4-5 months after inclusion.
The burden of the assessment protocol for the child, reported by caregivers on the study-specific Acceptability Scale.
Time frame: Will be evaluated after the intervention period, i.e. 4-5 months after inclusion.
The burden of the assessment protocol for the caregivers, reported by caregivers on the study-specific Acceptability Scale.
Time frame: Will be evaluated after the intervention period, i.e. 4-5 months after inclusion.
Caregiver reported relevance of topics in questionnaires
Time frame: Will be evaluated after the intervention period, i.e. 4-5 months after inclusion.
Therapist reported burden of the baseline assessment measured by the duration of the assessment.
Time frame: Will be evaluated after the intervention period, i.e. 4-5 months after inclusion.
The perceived relevance of working with SMART-goals as rated by caregivers on the study-specific Acceptability Scale.
Time frame: Will be evaluated after the intervention period, i.e. 4-5 months after inclusion.
The perceived relevance of working with SMART-goals rated by the child on the study-specific Acceptability Scale.
Time frame: Will be evaluated after the intervention period, i.e. 4-5 months after inclusion.
Therapist-recorded technical failures in using videoconference in treatment delivery assessed by a study-specific log.
Time frame: Will be evaluated after the intervention period, i.e. 4-5 months after inclusion.
Therapist-recorded time spent on installment of the equipment for using videoconference in treatment delivery
Time frame: Will be evaluated after the intervention period, i.e. 4-5 months after inclusion.
Experienced quality of communication in using videoconference in treatment delivery, assessed by the Acceptability scale.
Time frame: Will be evaluated after the intervention period, i.e. 4-5 months after inclusion.
Semi-structured qualitative interviews with all participating children, caregivers and teachers will be conducted to elaborate aspects of feasibility as described above.
Time frame: Will be performed after the intervention period, i.e. 4-5 months after inclusion.
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 8 Feb 2021.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 37291543Svendsen EJ, Killi EM, Rohrer-Baumgartner N, Holthe IL, Sandhaug M, Borgen IMH, Wade SL, Hauger SL, Lovstad M, Bragstad LK. Children's, parents', and teachers' experiences of the feasibility of a telerehabilitation intervention for children with acquired brain injury in the chronic phase - a qualitative study of acceptability and participation in the Child In Context Intervention (CICI). BMC Health Serv Res. 2023 Jun 8;23(1):603. doi: 10.1186/s12913-023-09589-z.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No. Data are person sensitive and will not be openly shared.
Related trials for Brain Injuries
Not yet recruiting
Feasibility of a Robot-Guided Active Play Intervention for Children With Cerebral Palsy
Cerebral Palsy
Recruiting
Additional Effects on tDCS With AOT on Lower Limb Functions on Children With Diplegic CP
Diplegic Cerebral Palsy
Recruiting
Sensory Integration Therapy vs Conventional Physical Therapy in Children With Mixed Cerebral Palsy
Cerebral Palsy
Recruiting
Telerehabilitation Compared With Clinic-Based Physiotherapy in Children With Spastic Cerebral Palsy
Spastic Cerebral Palsy
Active, not recruitingObservational study
Transforming Research and Clinical Knowledge in Traumatic Brain Injury Epileptogenesis Project (TRACK-TBI EPI)
Traumatic Brain Injury, Post-traumatic Epilepsy
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Marianne Løvstad, PhD principal investigator
Sunnaas Rehabilitation Hospital, University of Oslo
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing CICI - Feasibility trial study group in people with Brain Injuries and Brain Diseases, run by Sunnaas Rehabilitation Hospital at 1 site in Norway.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 4 inclusion and 6 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 8 Feb 2021. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Norway. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Protocol adherence assessed by study-specific checklists (time frame: Will be evaluated after the intervention period, i.e. 4-5 months after inclusion.). The study lists 5 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT04186182, which also lists 1 linked publication.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 8 Feb 2021.