Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

  • Loading metrics

Open Access

Study Protocol

Improving outcomes for care partners of persons with traumatic brain injury: Protocol for a randomized control trial of a just-in-time-adaptive self-management intervention

  • Noelle E. Carlozzi ,

    Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Supervision, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    carlozzi@med.umich.edu

    Affiliation Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States of America

    ⨯
  • Angelle M. Sander,

    Roles Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliations H. Ben Taub Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Baylor College of Medicine/Harris Health System, Houston, Texas, United States of America, Brain Injury Research Center, TIRR Memorial Hermann, Houston, Texas, United States of America

    ⨯
  • Sung Won Choi,

    Roles Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Department of Pediatrics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States of America

    ⨯
  • Zhenke Wu,

    Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Supervision, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliations Department of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States of America, Michigan Institute for Data Science, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States of America

    ⨯
  • Jennifer A. Miner,

    Roles Data curation, Methodology, Project administration, Supervision, Writing – original draft

    Affiliation Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States of America

    ⨯
  • Angela K. Lyden,

    Roles Data curation, Project administration, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Clinical Trials Support Office, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States of America

    ⨯
  • Christopher Graves,

    Roles Data curation, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States of America

    ⨯
  • Srijan Sen

    Roles Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Department of Psychiatry, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States of America

    ⨯

Abstract

Informal family care partners of persons with traumatic brain injury (TBI) often experience intense stress resulting from their caregiver role. As such, there is a need for low burden, and easy to engage in interventions to improve health-related quality of life (HRQOL) for these care partners. This study is designed to evaluate the effectiveness of a personalized just-in-time adaptive intervention (JITAI) aimed at improving the HRQOL of care partners. Participants are randomized either to a control group, where they wear the Fitbit® and provide daily reports of HRQOL over a six-month (180 day) period (without the personalized feedback), or the JITAI group, where they wear the Fitbit®, provide daily reports of HRQOL and receive personalized self-management pushes for 6 months. 240 participants will be enrolled (n = 120 control group; n = 120 JITAI group). Outcomes are collected at baseline, 1-, 2-, 3-, 4-, 5- & 6-months, as well as 3- and 6-months post intervention. We hypothesize that the care partners who receive the intervention (JITAI group) will show improvements in caregiver strain (primary outcome) and mental health (depression and anxiety) after the 6-month (180 day) home monitoring period. Participant recruitment for this study started in November 2020. Data collection efforts should be completed by spring 2025; results are expected by winter 2025. At the conclusion of this randomized control trial, we will be able to identify care partners at greatest risk for negative physical and mental health outcomes, and will have demonstrated the efficacy of this JITAI intervention to improve HRQOL for these care partners.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrial.gov NCT04570930; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04570930.

Citation: Carlozzi NE, Sander AM, Choi SW, Wu Z, Miner JA, Lyden AK, et al. (2022) Improving outcomes for care partners of persons with traumatic brain injury: Protocol for a randomized control trial of a just-in-time-adaptive self-management intervention. PLoS ONE 17(6): e0268726. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0268726

Editor: Lorena Verduci, PLOS: Public Library of Science, UNITED KINGDOM

Received: March 22, 2022; Accepted: March 29, 2022; Published: June 9, 2022

Copyright: © 2022 Carlozzi et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study. All relevant data from this study will be made available upon study completion.

Funding: Work on this manuscript was supported by grant number R01NR013658 from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), National Institute of Nursing Research and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (UL1TR000433 and UL1TR002240). We thank the investigators, coordinators, and research associates/assistants who worked on this study, the study participants, and organizations who supported recruitment efforts. The funders had and will not have a role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Abbreviations: HRQOL, Health-related quality of life; IRB, Institutional review board; ISM, Independent Safety Monitor; JITAI, Just in time adaptive intervention; RCT, Randomized control trial; TBI, Traumatic Brain Injury

Introduction

Illness impacts the entire family, and the complete picture of human disease is a collage of the experiences of both the affected patient and family care partner(s) [1]. As a society, responsibility for addressing these needs has always been placed on family care partners, who face an enormous and growing burden providing care to a loved one while trying to maintain their own health and well-being [2].

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a particularly challenging condition for family care partners due to the unexpected burden of providing prolonged supportive care at home once the survivor has been discharged from the hospital or rehabilitation facility. Care partners of persons with TBI must not only learn to cope with dramatic changes in their loved one’s health and functional abilities, but they also may feel ill-equipped to provide the requisite level of care.

Care partners of persons with TBI commonly experience problems with physical and mental HRQOL as a result of the caregiver role. Clinical interventions that focus on the self-care of care partners are critically important to improving health outcomes for both care partners and persons with TBI. Care partners may recognize the importance of self-care; however, the time demands of caring for an individual with TBI, as well as the associated physical and emotional toll, make it difficult for these individuals to prioritize their own self-care. Our preliminary work has highlighted the difficulty that care partners have engaging in positive health behaviors (e.g., physical activity or exercise) [3, 4]. This is especially unfortunate given recently published data in TBI that shows increases in physical activity are associated with improvements in anxiety and depression [5]. In fact, care partners of persons with TBI often report forgetting to engage in health management strategies focused on their own well-being [6]. Self-management programs (i.e., programs focused on medical/behavioral management, role management, and emotional management [7]) provide a potential avenue for fostering care partner health, yet those that have been examined in care partners of persons with TBI are burdensome and costly, and have limited impact on HRQOL in these individuals [7–11].

Although mobile health interventions offer the advantages of convenience, reach and scalability to promote health and well-being (including just-in-time adaptive interventions [JITAIs]), the clinical utility of this type of intervention in care partners of persons with TBI remains untested. We will address this critical gap in the literature by using passive data (i.e., physical activity and sleep data derived from a wrist-worn Fitbit®) and real-time assessments of HRQOL to identify and provide support to care partners of persons with TBI at the greatest risk for negative outcomes. We will also assess the effectiveness of a low-cost, low-burden intervention (the JITAI) designed to improve HRQOL outcomes in these care partners. We will examine the efficacy of the JITAI to improve self-reported mental HRQOL (including caregiver strain, depression and anxiety) in care partners of persons with TBI.

Methods

Participants and setting

240 care partners of persons with TBI will participate in this study. Participant recruitment and enrollment will take place at two data collection sites–(1) the University of Michigan and (2) Baylor College of Medicine/TIRR Memorial Hermann. Given that the COVID-19 pandemic occurred immediately prior to the start of this trial, the study was designed to allow participation to be completely virtual.

Inclusion criteria.

Care partners must be at least 18 years old, be able to read and understand English and be caring for an adult (age 18 or above) with a medically documented TBI who sustained their TBI at age 16 or older. Care partners must be providing some form of care to the person with TBI. Specifically, care partners must indicate a response ≥1 to the following question: “On a scale of 0–10, where 0 is ‘no assistance’ and 10 is ‘assistance with all activities,’ how much assistance does the person you care for require from you to complete activities of daily living due to problems resulting from his/her TBI? Activities could consist of personal hygiene, dressing and undressing, housework, taking medications, managing money, running errands, shopping for groceries or clothing, transportation, meal preparation and cleanup, remembering things, etc.” Care partners of persons with TBI must be caring for an individual who is ≥1 year post-injury (to allow for stabilization of functioning in the person with TBI [12–23]) and meet TBI Model Systems inclusion criteria [24] for complicated mild, moderate or severe TBI. Specifically, complicated mild TBI is defined as an emergency room GCS score of 13–15 with positive findings on neuroimaging. Moderate to severe TBI is defined by at least one of the following: 1) post traumatic amnesia greater than 24 hours, 2) trauma related intracranial neuroimaging abnormalities, 3) loss of consciousness greater than 30 minutes not due to sedation or intoxication, 4) Glasgow Coma Scale in the emergency room of less than 13, not due to intubation, sedation or intoxication. Caregivers must also have access to the necessary resources for participating in a technology-based intervention and be willing to use their personal mobile device (e.g., smartphone, tablet) for this study, be willing to download the study app (CareQOL) and Fitbit® app and be willing to complete all study assessments.

Exclusion criteria.

Professional paid caregivers (e.g., home health aide) are excluded from this study.

Recruitment and screening

Sites will recruit participants primarily through their established medical and TBI clinics, participant registries (both TBI- and care partner-specific registries), and clinical databases. Study participants will also be recruited through local TBI and care partner support groups, from organizations like the Brain Injury Association, and through targeted Facebook ads. Potential participants will be recruited directly or through the person they are caring for. Individuals who are interested in participating will be encouraged to ask questions about the study and their participation, and if they opt to enroll, they will provide informed consent prior to completing any study assessments.

Study design

This behavioral trial will use a two-arm randomized controlled design. Study participation will involve a baseline assessment followed by a 10-day run-in period then a six-month home-monitoring period (in which the intervention will be administered to the JITAI group). After the completion of the 6-month home monitoring period, two post-intervention assessments will be administered at 9- and 12-months. Care partners will be block randomized at a 1:1 rate to the control or the JITAI group (e.g., n = 120 control; n = 120 JITAI). For both groups, the baseline assessment will include the completion of several self-report measures (including the TBI-CareQOL HRQOL measures) and instructions for the home monitoring period. During the home monitoring period, both groups will wear the Fitbit® (e.g., Inspire) to continuously monitor physical activity and sleep, and both groups will complete real-time ratings of HRQOL (i.e., stress, worry and sadness) using the CareQOL app. Each participant will be prompted by a push notification in a five-hour window (based on participant preference) from the app to answer the questions. Care partners randomized to the JITAI group will have a 50/50 chance of receiving personalized “pushes” each day (through the CareQOL app). If randomized to receive the intervention message that day, the push notification will be delivered five hours after the time selected to receive the daily HRQOL questions. This notification can be viewed quickly on the phone’s lock screen, or participants can open the app to view the notification on the app’s home screen, where it stays until the next intervention message is sent. This allows the participant to choose not to engage with the notification (e.g., ignore it) at the time it is sent if it is inconvenient since they can return to it later.

Care partners in both groups will complete a portion of the TBI-CareQOL baseline measures at the end of each month during the home monitoring period, as well as at 9- and 12-months (i.e., 3- and 6-months post intervention). The study design is detailed in Fig 1.

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 1. Study schema.

Consort flow diagram.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0268726.g001

Randomization

Blocked randomization will be used to limit bias and achieve an equal distribution of participants to the control and treatment arms. A randomization list will be generated for each site and the study statistician will oversee randomization. The participant will be randomized once they are deemed eligible and have provided informed consent (i.e., at enrollment prior to baseline data collection). The study coordinator/research assistant who consented the participant will use their site’s randomization list to assign the participant to the correct study arm.

Intervention

Just-in-time adaptive intervention (JITAI) is a mobile health behavior-change approach that operationalizes the selection and delivery of personalized mobile device intervention strategies based on real-time data collection. In this study, a study-specific app (CareQOL app) will integrate sensor data from a Fitbit® (on physical activity and sleep) with real-time self-report ratings of HRQOL (caregiver strain, depression, anxiety) to inform the JITAI. The CareQOL app will provide standard feedback to all study participants consisting of graphical displays of individual behaviors over time that users will be able to “pull” from the app at any time (i.e., stress, worry, sadness, sleep, and activity level graphs can be viewed at the users’ discretion 24/7; Fig 2). Among caregivers that are randomized to the intervention group, the JITAI will deliver personalized messages via the app ~50% the days during the 6-month intervention period; each day, the user has a 50/50 chance of receiving a feedback message.

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 2. CareQOL app.

Screen shots of the different elements of the CareQOL App.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0268726.g002

The JITAI push notifications are aimed at promoting healthy behaviors (physical activity and good sleep hygiene) and improving mood (anxiety, depression, caregiver strain). Push notifications were broadly based on Behavioral Activation (BA) theory, which posits that negative life events (e.g., difficult interactions between the care partner and care-recipient, increased care partner stress due to caregiver role overload, etc.) trigger negative emotional responses (e.g., depression, anxiety, etc.) that lead to unhealthy behavioral patterns (e.g., poor sleep, decreased exercise, social withdrawal), which starts the cycle all over again [25]. BA (including BA delivered via text messaging) has been shown to be effective for treating both anxiety and depression, as “pure” constructs as well as for persons who are experiencing a mixture of the two [5, 26–30].

Specific “pushes” for this study were adapted from those that have been tested in our previous work [31, 32] using an iterative process that involved expert review and stakeholder input. Existing “pushes” (from our previous work) were reviewed for appropriateness for a care partner population and to identify gaps in content coverage. Prompts were added, deleted, or modified to ensure relevance to care partners. The adapted text was then reviewed by key stakeholders (care partners of persons with TBI, advocates for care partners of persons with TBI, and healthcare providers) and additional modifications were made resulting in a final pool of 411 prompts. Some messages use participants’ data directly in the messages (e.g., “You walked an average of 8,120 steps this week”), and most messages are designed to be personalized based on data (e.g., someone with low steps will get a different message than someone with medium steps than someone with high steps). Messages are comprised of one or more of the following different types: 1) Data feedback; 2) Facts; 3) Tips; and 4) Support. If receiving a notification, the message is randomly drawn from this pool of messages. Randomization of the days the participants receive messages and the message the participant receives from the pool will be done through the CareQOL app.

Outcomes

The primary objective of this study is to examine the efficacy of the JITAI to improve self-reported caregiver strain in care partners of persons with traumatic brain injury (TBI). Table 1 provides a detailed summary of the study assessments and Fig 1 details the schedule of events. Briefly, participants will complete a baseline survey, a 10-day run-in period that will include the completion of 3 HRQOL items each day, a 6-month (~180 day) home monitoring period where participants wear the Fitbit® and complete daily and monthly HRQOL assessments, and two follow-up assessments. The baseline assessment includes the completion of a series of surveys designed to characterize the sample with respect to demographics, caregiving experiences, and usual coping or management strategies, as well as a large battery of HRQOL measures that have been previously developed and validated for use in this population (i.e., the TBI-CareQOL measurement system [33–36]). The 10-day run-in period provides time to allow for shipping the Fitbit® to participant’s homes, and gives the participant the opportunity to familiarize themselves with the study technology (Fitbit®, CareQOL app), and includes three real-time daily questions about HRQOL (that are administered as a computer adaptive test over the course of the week). During the 6-month home-monitoring period, all participants will continue to answer three daily HRQOL questions, as well as slightly longer HRQOL surveys that are administered at the end of each month. HRQOL surveys are also administered at 3- and 6-months following the home monitoring period.

thumbnail
Download:
Table 1. Outcome measures and assessment schedule.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0268726.t001

We will examine change scores from baseline to 6-months in self-reported caregiver strain as measured by TBI-CareQOL Caregiver Strain. Secondary and tertiary objectives include the examination of efficacy of the JITAI to improve other HRQOL outcomes (including other aspects of self-reported physical, mental and social health, as well as Fitbit®-based estimates of physical activity and sleep). Again, we will examine change scores from baseline to 6-months for both the self-reported HRQOL measures, as well as the Fitbit® -based estimates of physical activity and sleep. We hypothesize that the care partners who receive the intervention (JITAI group) will show improvements in Caregiver Strain (Primary endpoint) and other aspects of HRQOL (as measured by the other self-report measures) and functioning (as measured by the Fitbit® -based estimates of physical activity and sleep) after the 6-month (180 day) home monitoring period. Tertiary analyses will include the examination of change over time in HRQOL and estimates of functioning for other time frames (e.g., change over time from month to month, maintenance of changes at 3- and 6-months post-intervention, etc.). We expect that the care partners who receive the intervention (JITAI group) will show improvements in HRQOL for these shorter timeframes, and we anticipate that these gains will be maintained at 3- and 6-months post-intervention. Tertiary analyses will also include the identification of care partners at the greatest risk for negative physical and mental HRQOL outcomes, and the times when they are most at risk. For these analyses we hypothesize that objective, data-derived mobile phenotypes can predict risk for adverse HRQOL (as measured by the TBI-CareQOL item banks) in these care partners.

Data collection, storage, and protection

This project uses multiple electronic data capture and management platforms (e.g., REDCap, CareQOL, Qualtrics, Fitbit®, University of Michigan Health Information Technology and Services server, Google Cloud, Amazon Web Services Cloud). All platforms are designed for human subjects research and comply with federal and local data and information security practices. Each site will use the same platforms. Annual data audits will be conducted at each data collection site and will include the review of at least 20% of the cases that have been collected since the previous review.

Sample size considerations

Initial power calculations were based on the expected difference in change in self-reported TBI-CareQOL Caregiver Strain (from baseline to 6-month follow-up) between the JITAI group and the control group. Using self-reported TBI-CareQOL Caregiver Strain, we expect using a normative T-score, with a standardized mean set at 50 and a standard deviation of 9.66, the minimum detectable difference for caregiver strain to be in the range of 4–6 points. A sample size of 92 in each group will have 80% power to detect a difference in means of 4.0 assuming that the common standard deviation is 9.66 using a two-group t-test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level. Similar results would be expected for the expected difference in change in the other HRQOL measures that are the focus of the secondary and tertiary objectives.

The proposed sample size of n = 240 caregivers accounts for sampling estimates for the tertiary analyses that consider multiple HRQOL outcomes simultaneously. For these analyses, sample size estimates were based on the following considerations: [37] 1) type I error rate (α) = 0.05; 2) the smallest meaningful difference to be detected = (δ); 3) power (γ) = 0.8; 4) an assumed outcome marginal variance (σ2) that is constant over time and 102 (according to the T-metric used to score each HRQOL domain); 5) the number of repeated measurements per person (n) = 1 baseline, 8 post-baseline for a total of n = 9 repeated assessments; and 6) an assumed exchangeable correlation (ρ) = a range of values 0.4, 0.5, 0.6, 0.7, 0.8 for the correlation structure among the repeated measurements. The sample size formula is: where

Table 2 provides the sample sizes needed for different effect sizes (δ) and correlations (ρ) when comparing post-baseline averaged outcomes between JITAI and control groups using an analysis of covariance method (assumed 15% attrition rate [11, 38, 39]). Thus, the proposed sample size of N = 240 care partners is sufficient to detect small, but meaningful effects.

thumbnail
Download:
Table 2. Estimated sample sizes.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0268726.t002

Statistics

Care partners in each study group (JITAI and control) will be compared descriptively according to Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials Guidelines [40]. T-tests/analysis of variance will be used to examine group differences for continuous variables (e.g., age, HRQOL outcomes, Fitbit® outcomes, time since injury, functional status of person with TBI). Chi-squared/Fisher exact tests will be used to examine group differences for categorical variables (e.g., sex, ethnicity, race, education, marital status, relationship to person with TBI, TBI severity).

As mentioned above, we will examine change scores from baseline to 6-months in self-reported caregiver strain as measured by TBI-CareQOL Caregiver Strain (Primary Endpoint), as well as other secondary and tertiary HRQOL and functional outcome endpoints. For these analyses, we will examine score changes from baseline to 6-months post-intervention separately for each of these outcome measures between the two arms. Means and standard deviations of the within-person changes will be calculated. In addition, separate models will be conducted for each dependent variable (Caregiver Strain or other HRQOL or functional outcome). Each model will use a linear mixed effect model, where a random intercept will be included to account for repeated measurements from the same subject. In addition, the following independent variables will be included in each model: the randomization arm, time and interaction between randomization arm and time, and baseline Caregiver Strain/HRQOL/Functional outcome scores. Key biologic variables such as age, sex, TBI severity, and co-morbidities will be among some of the factors explored as potential confounders. Differences between treatment arms can then be obtained by estimating and testing the corresponding parameters in the linear mixed effect model.

Tertiary analyses will also include comparing the averaged post-baseline outcomes (physical activity, sleep and HRQOL) between the JITAI and control groups, as well as the monthly rate of change in outcomes (physical activity, sleep and HRQOL) between the JITAI and control groups. Assuming one pre-specified TBI-CareQOL HRQOL domain as the primary outcome variable, we will compare the averaged post-baseline outcomes between the JITAI and control groups (one baseline assessment, six end-of-month assessments, and two post-intervention assessments). We will adjust for baseline measurements to improve the power of the two-sample t-test to determine whether mean post-baseline HRQOL differs between the two groups. We will compare monthly rate of change using models that consider both time-invariant and time-varying covariates. Generalized linear mixed models will also be performed to complement the results of the t-test and adjust for specific baseline care partner/person with TBI characteristics (e.g., demographic, TBI severity) to increase the precision of our inference. Finally, tertiary analyses will also include kernel methods in machine learning to estimate interpretable “signatures” preceding episodes of adverse symptoms or decreases in TBI-CareQOL HRQOL scores in at least one domain that have potential to inform timely intervention [41]. We will make inferences about which Fitbit® mobile-sensor-collected behavioral phenotypes are most predictive and evaluate their time-delayed impact upon TBI-CareQOL HRQOL scores at different time lags.

Ethics and dissemination

This trial is being carried out in accordance with the United States (US) Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) applicable to clinical studies (45 CFR Part 46, 21 CFR Part 50, 21 CFR Part 56, 21 CFR Part 312, and/or 21 CFR Part 812) and research best practices. The protocol, informed consent document, and all participant materials have received approval from IRBMED (9/18/2020), which is serving as the institutional review board (IRB) of record for both data collection sites (IRBMED Multi-site Application Approval HUM00181282; IRBMED University of Michigan Site Application Approval HUM00186921; IRBMED Baylor College of Medicine Site Application Approval SITE0000087; Baylor College of Medicine/Memorial Hermann IRB number H-48478. This trial is also registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04570930).

All study results will be reported in accordance with CONSORT 2010 guidelines and the 2013 CONSORT-PRO extension guidance [42, 43]. In addition, this minimal risk study is being monitored by an Independent Safety Monitor (ISM). While we do not anticipate any serious adverse events for this trial, the ISM is responsible for evaluating trial progress (including data quality and timeliness, recruitment, accrual and retention, participant risk versus benefit, overall performance of the trial and other factors that can affect outcomes) in order to ensure the safety of study participants.

Results

Recruitment to this trial began in November 2020; data collection is expected to take ~4 years (November 2024), and the dissemination of trial results is planned thereafter. We expect results for the primary outcomes in the winter of 2025.

Discussion

This protocol provides a description of the design and methods for a randomized clinical trial that is designed to examine the efficacy of a self-management JITAI. JITAIs use real-time data collection to inform and personalize the delivery of the intervention and provide an accessible and cost-effective approach that delivers personalized and adaptive interventions in a real-time, real-world context [44, 45]. This emerging approach been associated with significant improvements in health outcomes in behavioral health, including physical activity, [46, 47] alcohol use, [48, 49] mental illness, [50] and smoking cessation [51, 52].

This study will be the first time a self-management JITAI, or indeed any JITAI, will be examined in caregivers of persons with TBI. This is especially important given interventions that focus on the self-care of care partners are critically important to improving health outcomes for both care partners and persons with TBI. Care partners may recognize the importance of self-care; however, the time demands of caring for an individual with TBI, as well as the associated physical and emotional toll, make it difficult for these individuals to prioritize their own self-care. In fact, care partners of persons with TBI often indicate that they simply forget to engage in health management strategies focused on their own well-being [6]. Self-management programs (i.e., programs focused on medical/behavioral management, role management, and emotional management [7]) provide a potential avenue for fostering care partner self-care, yet only three studies have been published examining a self-management approach in care partners of persons with TBI (two of which involved several in-person treatment sessions and the other which involved the completion of educational modules, as well as 8–10 supportive phone calls [one call delivered every 2-weeks]) [7–11].

This JITAI is administered by the CareQOL app (usable with Android and iOS platforms), which integrates passive sensor data derived from a Fitbit® (e.g., accelerometer-based estimates of physical activity and sleep), alongside real-time self-reported ratings of HRQOL (that are administered as a computer adaptive test over the course of the week). This app was modeled after the one that was developed and tested in our previous work examining the efficacy of a similar JITAI in medical interns [31, 32].

Conclusions

At the conclusion of this project, we will have the data needed to support a low-cost, low-burden self-management JITAI in care partners of persons with TBI and will better understand how HRQOL may fluctuate on a day-to-day basis in these individuals. We will also be able to identify care partners of persons with TBI at greatest risk for negative physical and mental health outcomes. Ultimately, this work may result in a scalable intervention that can be widely implemented in this population, leading to improved HRQOL for care partners of persons with TBI and those they care for. Importantly, the findings from this study may be able to be adapted and applied to other caregiving groups, further amplifying the impact of this work.

Acknowledgments

We thank the investigators, coordinators, and research associates/assistants who worked on this study, the study participants, and organizations who supported recruitment efforts.

Site Investigators and Coordinators: Noelle Carlozzi, Sung Won Choi, Zhenke Wu, Srijan Sen, Christopher Graves, Angela Lyden, Nikki Hubbard, Abigail Biddix, Jennifer Miner (University of Michigan, Ann, Arbor, MI); Angelle Sander (Baylor College of Medicine and TIRR Memorial Hermann, Houston, TX), Jay Bogaards (TIRR Memorial Hermann, Houston, TX).

References

  1. 1. Rothing M, Malterud K, Frich JC. Caregiver roles in families affected by Huntington’s disease: a qualitative interview study. Scand J Caring Sci. 2013. pmid:24237139
  2. 2. Verhaeghe S, Defloor T, Grypdonck M. Stress and coping among families of patients with traumatic brain injury: a review of the literature. J Clin Nurs. 2005;14(8):1004–12. pmid:16102152
  3. 3. Carlozzi NE, Kratz AL, Sander AM, Chiaravalloti ND, Brickell TA, Lange RT, et al. Health-related quality of life in caregivers of individuals with traumatic brain injury: development of a conceptual model. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2015;96(1):105–13. pmid:25239281
  4. 4. Carlozzi NE, Brickell TA, French LM, Sander A, Kratz AL, Tulsky DS, et al. Caring for our wounded warriors: A qualitative examination of health-related quality of life in caregivers of individuals with military-related traumatic brain injury. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2016;53(6):669–80. pmid:27997672
  5. 5. Hart T, Vaccaro M, Collier G, Chervoneva I, Fann JR. Promoting mental health in traumatic brain injury using single-session behavioral activation and SMS messaging: A randomized control trial. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation. In Press.
  6. 6. Bendixen RM, Fairman AD, Karavolis M, Sullivan C, Parmanto B. A User-Centered Approach: Understanding Client and Caregiver Needs and Preferences in the Development of mHealth Apps for Self-Management. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2017;5(9):e141. pmid:28951378
  7. 7. Lorig KR, Holman H. Self-management education: history, definition, outcomes, and mechanisms. Ann Behav Med. 2003;26(1):1–7. pmid:12867348
  8. 8. Muenchberger H, Kendall E, Kennedy A, Charker J. Living with brain injury in the community: outcomes from a community-based self-management support (CB-SMS) programme in Australia. Brain Inj. 2011;25(1):23–34. pmid:21117912
  9. 9. Niemeier JP, Kreutzer JS, Marwitz JH, Sima AP. A Randomized Controlled Pilot Study of a Manualized Intervention for Caregivers of Patients With Traumatic Brain Injury in Inpatient Rehabilitation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2018. pmid:30075147
  10. 10. Hart T, Driver S, Sander A, Pappadis M, Dams-O’Connor K, Bocage C, et al. Traumatic brain injury education for adult patients and families: a scoping review. Brain Inj. 2018;32(11):1295–306. pmid:30084694
  11. 11. Powell JM, Fraser R, Brockway JA, Temkin N, Bell KR. A Telehealth Approach to Caregiver Self-Management Following Traumatic Brain Injury: A Randomized Controlled Trial. J Head Trauma Rehabil. 2016;31(3):180–90. pmid:26394294
  12. 12. Dikmen S, Corrigan JD, Levin HS, Machamer J, Stiers W, Weisskopf MG. Cognitive outcome following traumatic brain injury. J Head Trauma Rehab. 2009;24(6):430–8. pmid:19940676
  13. 13. Dikmen S, Machamer JE, Winn HR, Temkin NR. Neuropsychological Outcome at 1-Year Post Head-Injury. Neuropsychology. 1995;9(1):80–90.
  14. 14. Dikmen S, Mclean A, Temkin N. Neuropsychological and Psychosocial Consequences of Minor Head-Injury. J Neurol Neurosur Ps. 1986;49(11):1227–32. pmid:3794728
  15. 15. Dikmen S, Reitan RM, Temkin NR. Neuropsychological recovery in head injury. Arch Neurol-Chicago. 1983;40(6):333–8. pmid:6847436
  16. 16. Burns AS, Marino RJ, Flanders AE, Flett H. Clinical diagnosis and prognosis following spinal cord injury. Handb Clin Neurol. 2012;109:47–62. pmid:23098705
  17. 17. Ditunno JF Jr., Stover SL, Freed MM, Ahn JH. Motor recovery of the upper extremities in traumatic quadriplegia: a multicenter study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1992;73(5):431–6. pmid:1580769
  18. 18. Waters RL, Yakura JS, Adkins RH, Sie I. Recovery following complete paraplegia. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1992;73(9):784–9. pmid:1514883
  19. 19. Waters RL, Adkins RH, Yakura JS, Sie I. Motor and sensory recovery following complete tetraplegia. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1993;74(3):242–7. pmid:8439249
  20. 20. Waters RL, Adkins RH, Yakura JS, Sie I. Motor and sensory recovery following incomplete paraplegia. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1994;75(1):67–72. pmid:8291966
  21. 21. Waters RL, Adkins R, Yakura J, Sie I. Donal Munro Lecture: Functional and neurologic recovery following acute SCI. J Spinal Cord Med. 1998;21(3):195–9. pmid:9863928
  22. 22. Jorgensen HS, Nakayama H, Raaschou HO, Vive-Larsen J, Stoier M, Olsen TS. Outcome and time course of recovery in stroke. Part II: Time course of recovery. The Copenhagen Stroke Study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1995;76(5):406–12. pmid:7741609
  23. 23. Jorgensen HS, Nakayama H, Raaschou HO, Vive-Larsen J, Stoier M, Olsen TS. Outcome and time course of recovery in stroke. Part I: Outcome. The Copenhagen Stroke Study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1995;76(5):399–405. pmid:7741608
  24. 24. Corrigan JD, Cuthbert JP, Whiteneck GG, Dijkers MP, Coronado V, Heinemann AW, et al. Representativeness of the Traumatic Brain Injury Model Systems National Database. J Head Trauma Rehab. 2012;27(6):391–403.
  25. 25. Dimidjian S, Barrera M Jr., Martell C, Munoz RF, Lewinsohn PM. The origins and current status of behavioral activation treatments for depression. Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2011;7:1–38. pmid:21275642
  26. 26. Dimidjian S, Hollon SD, Dobson KS, Schmaling KB, Kohlenberg RJ, Addis ME, et al. Randomized trial of behavioral activation, cognitive therapy, and antidepressant medication in the acute treatment of adults with major depression. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2006;74(4):658–70. pmid:16881773
  27. 27. Jacobson NS, Dobson KS, Truax PA, Addis ME, Koerner K, Gollan JK, et al. A component analysis of cognitive-behavioral treatment for depression. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1996;64(2):295–304. pmid:8871414
  28. 28. Mazzucchelli T, Kane RA, Rees C. Behavioral Activation Treatments for Depression in Adults: A Meta-analysis and Review. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice. 2009;16(4):383–411.
  29. 29. Gawrysiak M, Nicholas C, Hopko DR. Behavioral Activation for Moderately Depressed University Students: Randomized Controlled Trial. J Couns Psychol. 2009;56(3):468–75.
  30. 30. Hopko DR, Lejuez CW, Hopko SD. Behavioral Activation as an Intervention for Coexistent Depressive and Anxiety Symptoms Clinical Case Studies. 2004;3(1):37–48.
  31. 31. NeCamp T, Sen S, Frank E, Walton MA, Ionides EL, Fang Y, et al. Assessing Real-Time Moderation for Developing Adaptive Mobile Health Interventions for Medical Interns: Micro-Randomized Trial. Journal of medical Internet research. 2020;22(3):e15033. pmid:32229469
  32. 32. Sen S, Kranzler HR, Krystal JH, Speller H, Chan G, Gelernter J, et al. A prospective cohort study investigating factors associated with depression during medical internship. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2010;67(6):557–65. pmid:20368500
  33. 33. Carlozzi NE, Lange RT, French LM, Sander AM, Ianni PA, Tulsky DS, et al. Understanding Health-Related Quality of Life in Caregivers of Civilians and Service Members/Veterans With TBI: Reliability and Validity Data for the TBI-CareQOL Measurement System. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2018. pmid:29966648
  34. 34. Carlozzi NE, Kallen MA, Hanks R, Hahn EA, Brickell T, Lange R, et al. The TBI-CareQOL Measurement System: Development and preliminary validation of health-related quality of life measures for caregivers of civilians and service members/veterans with traumatic brain injury. Archives of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation. In Press. pmid:30195987
  35. 35. Carlozzi NE, Kallen MA, Ianni PA, Hahn EA, French LM, Lange RT, et al. The Development of a New Computer-Adaptive Test to Evaluate Strain in Caregivers of Individuals With TBI: TBI-CareQOL Caregiver Strain. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2018. pmid:29966647
  36. 36. Carlozzi NE, Kallen MA, Sander AM, Brickell TA, Lange RT, French LM, et al. The development of a new computer adaptive test to evaluate anxiety in caregivers of individuals with traumatic brain injury: TBI-CareQOL Caregiver-Specific Anxiety. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2018. pmid:29958902
  37. 37. Fitzmaurice GM, Laird NM, Ware JH. Applied longitudinal analysis. Boston, MA: John Wiley & Sons; 2012.
    • 38. Holmen H, Torbjornsen A, Wahl AK, Jenum AK, Smastuen MC, Arsand E, et al. A Mobile Health Intervention for Self-Management and Lifestyle Change for Persons With Type 2 Diabetes, Part 2: One-Year Results From the Norwegian Randomized Controlled Trial RENEWING HEALTH. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2014;2(4):e57. pmid:25499872
    • 39. Whitehead L, Seaton P. The Effectiveness of Self-Management Mobile Phone and Tablet Apps in Long-term Condition Management: A Systematic Review. Journal of medical Internet research. 2016;18(5):e97. pmid:27185295
    • 40. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D. CONSORT 2010 statement: Updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. J Pharmacol Pharmacother. 2010;1(2):100–7. pmid:21350618
    • 41. Hoyer PO, Janzing D, Mooij JM, Peters J, Schölkopf B. Nonlinear causal discovery with additive noise models. Advances in neural information processing systems 2009.
      • 42. Calvert M, Blazeby J, Altman DG, Revicki DA, Moher D, Brundage MD, et al. Reporting of patient-reported outcomes in randomized trials: the CONSORT PRO extension. JAMA. 2013;309(8):814–22. pmid:23443445
      • 43. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D, Group C. CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomized trials. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;115(5):1063–70. pmid:20410783
      • 44. Nahum-Shani I, Smith SN, Spring BJ, Collins LM, Witkiewitz K, Tewari A, et al. Just-in-Time Adaptive Interventions (JITAIs) in Mobile Health: Key Components and Design Principles for Ongoing Health Behavior Support. Ann Behav Med. 2016:1–17.
      • 45. Nahum-Shani I, Hekler EB, Spruijt-Metz D. Building health behavior models to guide the development of just-in-time adaptive interventions: A pragmatic framework. Health Psychology. 2015;34(S):1209. pmid:26651462
      • 46. Thomas JG, Bond DS. Behavioral response to a just-in-time adaptive intervention (JITAI) to reduce sedentary behavior in obese adults: Implications for JITAI optimization. Health Psychology. 2015;34(S):1261. pmid:26651467
      • 47. King AC, Hekler EB, Grieco LA, Winter SJ, Sheats JL, Buman MP, et al. Harnessing different motivational frames via mobile phones to promote daily physical activity and reduce sedentary behavior in aging adults. 2013.
      • 48. Gustafson DH, McTavish FM, Chih M-Y, Atwood AK, Johnson RA, Boyle MG, et al. A smartphone application to support recovery from alcoholism: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA psychiatry. 2014;71(5):566–72. pmid:24671165
      • 49. Witkiewitz K, Desai SA, Bowen S, Leigh BC, Kirouac M, Larimer ME. Development and evaluation of a mobile intervention for heavy drinking and smoking among college students. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors. 2014;28(3):639. pmid:25000269
      • 50. Ben-Zeev D, Brenner CJ, Begale M, Duffecy J, Mohr DC, Mueser KT. Feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary efficacy of a smartphone intervention for schizophrenia. Schizophrenia bulletin. 2014:sbu033.
      • 51. Riley W, Obermayer J, Jean-Mary J. Internet and mobile phone text messaging intervention for college smokers. Journal of American College Health. 2008;57(2):245–8. pmid:18809542
      • 52. Free C, Knight R, Robertson S, Whittaker R, Edwards P, Zhou W, et al. Smoking cessation support delivered via mobile phone text messaging (txt2stop): a single-blind, randomised trial. The Lancet. 2011;378(9785):49–55. pmid:21722952
      • 53. Lawton MP, Kleban MH, Moss M, Rovine M, Glicksman A. Measuring caregiving appraisal. Journal of gerontology. 1989;44(3):P61–71. pmid:2715587
      • 54. Struchen MA, Atchison TB, Roebuck TM, Caroselli JS, Sander AM. A multidimensional measure of caregiving appraisal: validation of the Caregiver Appraisal Scale in traumatic brain injury. J Head Trauma Rehabil. 2002;17(2):132–54. pmid:11909511
      • 55. Carlozzi NE, Lange R, French L, Sander AM, Ianni P, Tulsky DS, et al. Reliability and validity data for the TBI-CareQOL measurement system: Data from caregivers of civilian- and military-related traumatic brain injury. Under Review.
      • 56. Malec J. The Mayo-Portland Adaptability Inventory. The Center for Outcome Measurement in Brain Injury 2005 [http://www.tbims.org/combi/mpai.
        • 57. Malec JF, Kean J, Altman IM, Swick S. Mayo-Portland adaptability inventory: comparing psychometrics in cerebrovascular accident to traumatic brain injury. Archives of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation. 2012;93(12):2271–5. pmid:22743410
        • 58. Malec JF, Kragness M, Evans RW, Finlay KL, Kent A, Lezak MD. Further psychometric evaluation and revision of the Mayo-Portland Adaptability Inventory in a national sample. J Head Trauma Rehabil. 2003;18(6):479–92. pmid:14707878
        • 59. Malec JF, Moessner AM, Kragness M, Lezak MD. Refining a measure of brain injury sequelae to predict postacute rehabilitation outcome: rating scale analysis of the Mayo-Portland Adaptability Inventory. J Head Trauma Rehabil. 2000;15(1):670–82. pmid:10745183
        • 60. Blevins CA, Weathers FW, Davis MT, Witte TK, Domino JL. The Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5): Development and Initial Psychometric Evaluation. J Trauma Stress. 2015;28(6):489–98. pmid:26606250
        • 61. Verhey R, Chibanda D, Gibson L, Brakarsh J, Seedat S. Validation of the posttraumatic stress disorder checklist—5 (PCL-5) in a primary care population with high HIV prevalence in Zimbabwe. BMC Psychiatry. 2018;18(1):109. pmid:29685117
        • 62. Ashbaugh AR, Houle-Johnson S, Herbert C, El-Hage W, Brunet A. Psychometric Validation of the English and French Versions of the Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5). PLoS One. 2016;11(10):e0161645. pmid:27723815
        • 63. Walker WC, McDonald SD, Franke LM. Diagnostic accuracy of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Checklist in blast-exposed military personnel. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2014;51(8):1203–16. pmid:25671462
        • 64. Demirchyan A, Goenjian AK, Khachadourian V. Factor Structure and Psychometric Properties of the Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) Checklist and DSM-5 PTSD Symptom Set in a Long-Term Postearthquake Cohort in Armenia. Assessment. 2015;22(5):594–606. pmid:25348800
        • 65. Dickstein BD, Weathers FW, Angkaw AC, Nievergelt CM, Yurgil K, Nash WP, et al. Diagnostic Utility of the Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) Checklist for Identifying Full and Partial PTSD in Active-Duty Military. Assessment. 2015;22(3):289–97. pmid:25178804
        • 66. Karstoft KI, Andersen SB, Bertelsen M, Madsen T. Diagnostic accuracy of the posttraumatic stress disorder checklist-civilian version in a representative military sample. Psychol Assess. 2014;26(1):321–5. pmid:24188155
        • 67. Gardner PJ, Knittel-Keren D, Gomez M. The Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Checklist as a screening measure for posttraumatic stress disorder in rehabilitation after burn injuries. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2012;93(4):623–8. pmid:22365477
        • 68. Lima Ede P, Barreto SM, Assuncao AA. Factor structure, internal consistency and reliability of the Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Checklist (PCL): an exploratory study. Trends Psychiatry Psychother. 2012;34(4):215–22. pmid:25923070
        • 69. Terhakopian A, Sinaii N, Engel CC, Schnurr PP, Hoge CW. Estimating population prevalence of posttraumatic stress disorder: an example using the PTSD checklist. J Trauma Stress. 2008;21(3):290–300. pmid:18553416
        • 70. Bliese PD, Wright KM, Adler AB, Cabrera O, Castro CA, Hoge CW. Validating the primary care posttraumatic stress disorder screen and the posttraumatic stress disorder checklist with soldiers returning from combat. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2008;76(2):272–81. pmid:18377123
        • 71. Elhai JD, Gray MJ, Docherty AR, Kashdan TB, Kose S. Structural validity of the posttraumatic stress disorder checklist among college students with a trauma history. J Interpers Violence. 2007;22(11):1471–8. pmid:17925293
        • 72. DuHamel KN, Ostrof J, Ashman T, Winkel G, Mundy EA, Keane TM, et al. Construct validity of the posttraumatic stress disorder checklist in cancer survivors: analyses based on two samples. Psychol Assess. 2004;16(3):255–66. pmid:15456381
        • 73. Ventureyra VA, Yao SN, Cottraux J, Note I, De Mey-Guillard C. The validation of the Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Checklist Scale in posttraumatic stress disorder and nonclinical subjects. Psychother Psychosom. 2002;71(1):47–53. pmid:11740168
        • 74. Boake C. Supervision rating scale: a measure of functional outcome from brain injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1996;77(8):765–72. pmid:8702369
        • 75. Buysse DJ, Yu L, Moul DE, Germain A, Stover A, Dodds NE, et al. Development and validation of patient-reported outcome measures for sleep disturbance and sleep-related impairments. Sleep. 2010;33(6):781–92. pmid:20550019
        • 76. Cella D, Yount S, Rothrock N, Gershon R, Cook K, Reeve B, et al. The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS): progress of an NIH Roadmap cooperative group during its first two years. Med Care. 2007;45(5 Suppl 1):S3–S11. pmid:17443116
        • 77. Bartlett SJ, Orbai AM, Duncan T, DeLeon E, Ruffing V, Clegg-Smith K, et al. Reliability and Validity of Selected PROMIS Measures in People with Rheumatoid Arthritis. PLoS One. 2015;10(9):e0138543. pmid:26379233
        • 78. Quach CW, Langer MM, Chen RC, Thissen D, Usinger DS, Emerson MA, et al. Reliability and validity of PROMIS measures administered by telephone interview in a longitudinal localized prostate cancer study. Qual Life Res. 2016;25(11):2811–23. pmid:27240448
        • 79. Kappelman MD, Long MD, Martin C, DeWalt DA, Kinneer PM, Chen W, et al. Evaluation of the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system in a large cohort of patients with inflammatory bowel diseases. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2014;12(8):1315–23.e2. pmid:24183956
        • 80. Bajaj JS, Thacker LR, Wade JB, Sanyal AJ, Heuman DM, Sterling RK, et al. PROMIS computerised adaptive tests are dynamic instruments to measure health-related quality of life in patients with cirrhosis. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2011;34(9):1123–32. pmid:21929591
        • 81. Bode RK, Hahn EA, DeVellis R, Cella D. Measuring participation: the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System experience. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2010;91(9 Suppl):S60–5. pmid:20801282
        • 82. Cook KF, Jensen SE, Schalet BD, Beaumont JL, Amtmann D, Czajkowski S, et al. PROMIS measures of pain, fatigue, negative affect, physical function, and social function demonstrated clinical validity across a range of chronic conditions. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;73:89–102. pmid:26952842
        • 83. Cella D, Lai JS, Jensen SE, Christodoulou C, Junghaenel DU, Reeve BB, et al. PROMIS Fatigue Item Bank had Clinical Validity across Diverse Chronic Conditions. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;73:128–34. pmid:26939927
        • 84. Kratz AL, Schilling S, Goesling J, Williams DA. The PROMIS FatigueFM Profile: a self-report measure of fatigue for use in fibromyalgia. Qual Life Res. 2016;25(7):1803–13. pmid:26821919
        • 85. Cook KF, Bamer AM, Roddey TS, Kraft GH, Kim J, Amtmann D. A PROMIS fatigue short form for use by individuals who have multiple sclerosis. Qual Life Res. 2012;21(6):1021–30. pmid:21927914
        • 86. Tulsky DS, Kisala PA, Victorson D, Carlozzi N, Bushnik T, Sherer M, et al. TBI-QOL: Development and Calibration of Item Banks to Measure Patient Reported Outcomes Following Traumatic Brain Injury. J Head Trauma Rehabil. 2015.
        • 87. Purvis TE, Andreou E, Neuman BJ, Riley LH 3rd, Skolasky RL. Concurrent Validity and Responsiveness of PROMIS Health Domains Among Patients Presenting for Anterior Cervical Spine Surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2017. pmid:28742757
        • 88. Carlozzi NE, Ianni PA, Tulsky DS, Brickell TA, Lange RT, French LM, et al. Understanding Health-Related Quality of Life in Caregivers of Civilians and Service Members/Veterans With Traumatic Brain Injury: Establishing the Reliability and Validity of PROMIS Fatigue and Sleep Disturbance Item Banks. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2018. pmid:29932884
        • 89. Carlozzi NE, Hanks R, Lange RT, Brickell TA, Ianni PA, Miner JA, et al. Understanding Health-related Quality of Life in Caregivers of Civilians and Service Members/Veterans With Traumatic Brain Injury: Establishing the Reliability and Validity of PROMIS Mental Health Measures. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2018. pmid:29932885
        • 90. Pilkonis PA, Yu L, Dodds NE, Johnston KL, Maihoefer CC, Lawrence SM. Validation of the depression item bank from the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) in a three-month observational study. J Psychiatr Res. 2014;56:112–9. pmid:24931848
        • 91. Salsman JM, Butt Z, Pilkonis PA, Cyranowski JM, Zill N, Hendrie HC, et al. Emotion assessment using the NIH Toolbox. Neurology. 2013;80(11 Suppl 3):S76–86. pmid:23479549
        • 92. Gruber-Baldini AL, Velozo C, Romero S, Shulman LM. Validation of the PROMIS(R) measures of self-efficacy for managing chronic conditions. Qual Life Res. 2017;26(7):1915–24. pmid:28239781
        • 93. Carlozzi NE, Goodnight S, Casaletto KB, Goldsmith A, Heaton RK, Wong AW, et al. Validation of the NIH Toolbox in Individuals with Neurologic Disorders. Arch Clin Neuropsychol. 2017:1–19.
        • 94. Salsman JM, Victorson D, Choi SW, Peterman AH, Heinemann AW, Nowinski C, et al. Development and validation of the positive affect and well-being scale for the neurology quality of life (Neuro-QOL) measurement system. Qual Life Res. 2013;22(9):2569–80. pmid:23526093
        • 95. Carlozzi NE, Ianni PA, Lange RT, Brickell TA, Kallen MA, Hahn EA, et al. Understanding health-related quality of life of caregivers of civilians and service members/veterans with Traumatic Brain Injury: Establishing the reliability and validity of PROMIS social health measures. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2018. pmid:30075148
        • 96. Allen J, Alpass FM, Stephens CV. The sensitivity of the MOS SF-12 and PROMIS(R) global summary scores to adverse health events in an older cohort. Qual Life Res. 2018.
        • 97. Kasturi S, Szymonifka J, Burket JC, Berman JR, Kirou KA, Levine AB, et al. Feasibility, Validity, and Reliability of the 10-item Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Global Health Short Form in Outpatients with Systemic Lupus Erythematosus. J Rheumatol. 2018;45(3):397–404. pmid:29419473
        • 98. Katzan IL, Lapin B. PROMIS GH (Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Global Health) Scale in Stroke: A Validation Study. Stroke. 2018;49(1):147–54. pmid:29273595
        • 99. Lapin B, Thompson NR, Schuster A, Katzan IL. Clinical Utility of Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System Domain Scales. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2019;12(1):e004753. pmid:30587028
        • 100. Stoop N, Menendez ME, Mellema JJ, Ring D. The PROMIS Global Health Questionnaire Correlates With the QuickDASH in Patients With Upper Extremity Illness. Hand (N Y). 2018;13(1):118–21. pmid:28718322