AzTrials
AzTrials

Executive DysfunctionNCT01302314

Cognitive Rehabilitation in Patients With Spina Bifida

A study testing Goal management training (GMT) in people with Executive Dysfunction and Cognitive Deficits, run by Jan Stubberud at 1 site in Norway.

Completed

Finished. The study has ended and is not enrolling. Results may be posted on the official record.

Official record
Search all trials

Trial summary

This study will examine the effects of a theoretically grounded and manualized cognitive rehabilitation program on patients with Spina Bifida (SB). SB is often associated with deficit in higher order control over cognition, emotion and behaviour; which is typically referred to as executive functions. Read more about this study

Who is it for?
Ages 20 to 46 years
What is being tested?
Goal management training (GMT)
Could I receive a placebo?
No, everyone receives an active treatment
How many people
38 participants
Where
1 siteNorway
Study dates
Jan 2011to Dec 2011
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 20 to 46 years
  • All sexes
  • No healthy volunteers
  • Adult

Who may be able to join

  • Spina bifida with myelomeningocele (MMC)
  • Between 20 and 46 years of age
  • Problems in the domain of executive functioning

Who cannot join

  • Major psychiatric disorder
  • Reported alcohol or substance abuse within the past year
  • Aphasia or other specified language problems causing potential validity problems
  • IQ < 70

Trial locations and contacts

1 site in 1 country.

Norway1 site
  • Sunnaas rehabilitation hospital

    Oslo, Nesoddtangen, 1450

Other trials in Norway

About this study

Official title: Cognitive Rehabilitation in Patients With Spina Bifida: Effects on Executive Functions, Psychological and Health Related Factors

This study will examine the effects of a theoretically grounded and manualized cognitive rehabilitation program on patients with Spina Bifida (SB). SB is often associated with deficit in higher order control over cognition, emotion and behaviour; which is typically referred to as executive functions. The present study will examine the efficacy of Goal Management Training (GMT) in patients with SB that experience executive difficulties. It is expected that GMT will have a favourable effect on cognitive executive functioning, psychological and health related factors.

Read the detailed description

INTRODUCTION:

Rationale and purpose:

Rehabilitation of impaired cognitive processes has come to be a standard component of medical care after traumatic brain injury (TBI) or stroke (Cicerone, Dahlberg, Malec, Langenbahn, Felicitti, Kneipp, et al., 2005), and sometimes for patients with infections of the brain, hypoxic brain damage, and progressive conditions (Wilson, 2008).

The objective of this study is to determine the effects of a recently developed cognitive rehabilitation program; Goal Management Training (GMT) on the executive functioning in people with SB that have cognitive complaints. To date, research efforts have only focused on categorizing cognitive impairments in SB with no research directed towards rehabilitation for these impairments. Given the extent, nature, and ramifications of cognitive impairments in SB, studies on compensatory-based cognitive rehabilitation that teaches management strategies such as GMT may be beneficial for this population. The research questions in this study are (1) What effect does GMT have on cognitive executive functions? Furthermore, what effect does GMT have on subjective and informant evaluation of executive functioning? (2) What effect does GMT have on mental health and quality of life? (3) What effect does GMT have on coping strategies? There will be a 6 months follow-up with regard to the research questions. It is expected that GMT will have a favourable effect on executive functioning, psychological and health related factors in patients with SB.

BACKGROUND:

Medical and cognitive aspects in Spina bifida (SB):

SB is a birth defect caused by incomplete neural tube development, resulting in a protrusion of spinal cord, meninges, and nerve roots through an opening in the spine. SB is a disorder associated with a variety of brain abnormalities, usually including a congenital malformation of the cerebellum and hindbrain (Chiari II) and in about half the cases, partial dysgenesis of the corpus callosum (Barkovich, 2000). Hydrocephalus occurs in 95% of children with this disorder, with 80-90% requiring shunting (Fletcher et al., 2005). SB represents a complicated series of neural insults that begins prior to birth, with persisting effects on development, including problems in the orthopaedic, cognitive, and behavioural domains (Barkovich, 2000; Dicianno, Kurowski, Yang, et al., 2008).

Executive dysfunction:

Executive functions are higher level cognitive operations involved in the control and direction of lower level functions. Patients with executive dysfunction may experience, problems in dealing with novel situations, problems forming a reasonable plan that takes into account the relevant details, problems inhibiting habitual responses to situations when these are inappropriate, increased distractibility, problems in sustaining attention to task over time and keeping goals on-line, impaired monitoring and error-correction of behavioural output, low motivation, lack of foresight regarding the effects of one's behaviour, difficulty in regulating emotional state, and poor insight into one's difficulties (Levine, Stuss, Winocur, Binns, et al., 2007). Executive dysfunction will be examined in the present study because of the major implications deficits in this cognitive domain have for patients.

Although executive dysfunction is often associated with frontal lobe damage, it can also result from damage to other brain areas. Damage to the frontal-subcortical white matter circuits, which commonly occurs in SB, can disrupt communication between the prefrontal cortex and other areas of the brain (Dennis et al., 2006).

Cognitive rehabilitation:

Cognitive rehabilitation can be defined as a process whereby people with brain injury work together with professional staff and others to remediate or alleviate cognitive deficits arising from a neurological insult (Wilson, 2008). Treatment goals may vary, but the major goal of cognitive rehabilitation is to enable people with disabilities to function as adequately as possible in their own environments (Wilson, 2008). The effectiveness of cognitive rehabilitation is well documented within some domains for patients with stroke and TBI (e.g., Cicerone et al., 2000, 2005; Wilson, 2008; Rees et al., 2007).

The cognitive domain in focus of the present study will be executive functioning. Interventions within this domain, such as Goal Management Training (GMT), include those explicitly directed towards bridging the gap between intention and action, a deficit described as "goal neglect" with interventions targeted towards re-establishing endogenous control of behaviour.

Goal Management Training (GMT):

The present study has translated, and will use an intervention protocol that was originally developed to teach patients with brain injury a strategy to improve their ability to plan activities and to structure intentions; GMT. GMT aims to increase participants' understanding of their own goal management problems, to give them a vocabulary to describe the problems, and to give them a set of techniques to compensate for them.

GMT has been evaluated in 30 patients with mild to severe brain injury, who were randomly assigned to groups who received GMT or motor skill training. Participants who followed the GMT showed significant gains on everyday paper-and-pencil tasks designed to mimic tasks that are problematic for patients with deficits in executive functioning (Levine, Robertson, Clare, Carter, Hong, \& Wilson, et al., 2000). Furthermore, Levine et al. (2007) have also applied a version of this protocol in a sample of 49 elderly with subjective cognitive complaints where results indicated improvements in simulated real-life tasks and self-rated executive deficits. These gains where maintained at long-term follow-up. Moreover, in a Dutch study (van Hooren et al., 2007) involving 37 older adults with executive difficulties, the participants in the intervention group were significantly less annoyed by their cognitive failures, were better able to manage their executive failures and reported less anxiety symptoms than those in the waiting list control group after receiving GMT.

METHODS:

The study is an experimental repeated measures design with one treatment group (n=24) and one control group (n=14), total (n=38).

Procedure:

All the patients between the age of 20 and 45 registered at TRS national resource centre for rare disorders in Norway have been asked to participate in the study (n=201). Along with the invitation was a self-report questionnaire, Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function-Adult Version (BRIEF-A), which the respondents had to fill out and return. Inclusion of patients was based upon one or more elevated scales on the Metacognition Index (MI). Fifty-three (n=53) subjects responded and returned the BRIEF-A questionnaire, and all fulfilled the inclusion criteria.

The baseline measurement of fifty-three (n=53) subjects in this randomised controlled trial (RCT) have been done. At baseline the participants filled out questionnaires concerning cognitive functioning, mental health, quality of life, and coping. Furthermore, neuropsychological assessments were conducted. Additionally, the Dysexecutive Questionnaire and BRIEF-A informant report form were filled out by an adult informant who were familiar with the rated individual's everyday functioning. Six subjects were excluded at baseline because they met the exclusion criteria, six subjects met the inclusion criteria but could not follow the programme at the time being because of hospitalization/illness, and three subjects could not follow the programme at the time being because of school/education. After the baseline measurement the participants were randomly assigned to GMT or control group (waiting list). The method of randomisation was a block design with block size 2, with stratification for age and education.

Twenty-four (n=24) subjects have been assigned to GMT, with six subjects in each GMT training group. The GMT is structured into seven modules. Each module is designed to run for approximately two hours. As such, the subjects will stay at TRS for three days and go through module 1 and 2. Then they go home for a month, come back and stay for three days while going through modules 3, 4 and 5. Once more, they go home for a month, come in and go through modules 6 and 7. GMT consists of tasks performed during training designed to illustrate goal management concepts in action, and homework assignments designed to facilitate transfer of the concepts to real life. Both the control group and the intervention group will be assessed immediately after the intervention group has completed the intervention, and after 6 months.

Being tested
Goal management training (GMT)
Medical subject headings
Cognition Disorders, Spinal Dysraphism

What participants receive

What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.

  • Goal management training (GMT)Behavioural

    Fourteen hours of GMT during a time period of three months.

Study groups in NCT01302314
Study groupRoleWhat they receive
cognitive rehabilitationExperimentalNot described
Receives: Behavioral: Goal management training (GMT)

What is being measured

The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.

  1. Self and informant report of cognitive difficulties

    Behavior Rating Inventory for Executive Functions (BRIEF-A; Gioia et al., 2000).

    Measured: Baseline, 3 months and 6 months

  2. Self and informant report of cognitive difficulties

    The Dysexecutive Questionnaire (DEX; Burgess, Alderman, Emslie, Evans \& Wilson, 1996).

    Measured: Baseline, 3 months, and 6 months

  3. self report of cognitive failures

    Cognitive Failures Questionnaire (Broadbent, Cooper, FitzGerald, \& Parkes, 1982).

    Measured: baseline, 3 months, and 6 months

  4. self report of psychological problems

    Symptom Checklist 25 (SCL-25; Derogatis, 1994).

    Measured: baseline, 3 months, and 6 months

  5. self report of quality of life

    SF36 (Ware \& Sherbourne, 1992).

    Measured: baseline, 3 months, and 6 months

  6. Self report of coping strategies

    General Coping Questionnaire (GCQ-30; Joseph, Williams \& Yule, 1992a).

    Measured: baseline, 3 months, and 6 months

Secondary outcomes (5)
  1. Cognitive functions measured by neuropsychological tests

    Tower from Delis- Kaplan Executive Function System (D-KEFS; Delis, Kaplan \& Kramer, 2001).

    Measured: Baseline, 3 months and 6 months

  2. Cognitive functions measured by neuropsychological tests

    TMT from Delis- Kaplan Executive Function System (D-KEFS; Delis, Kaplan \& Kramer, 2001).

    Measured: baseline, 3 months and 6 months

  3. Cognitive functions measured by neuropsychological tests

    Stroop from Delis- Kaplan Executive Function System (D-KEFS; Delis, Kaplan \& Kramer, 2001).

    Measured: baseline, 3 months, and 6 months

  4. Cognitive functions measured by neuropsychological tests

    Conners Continuous Performance Test II (CPT-II; Conners, 2000)

    Measured: baseline, 3 months and 6 months

  5. Cognitive functions measured by neuropsychological tests

    The Hotel Task (Manly, Hawkins, Evans, Woldt, \& Robertson, 2002).

    Measured: baseline, 3 months and 6 months

Timeline

From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.

  1. First posted24 Feb 2011 (estimated)
  2. Study startJan 2011
  3. Primary completionMar 2011
  4. Study completionDec 2011

Resources

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
Randomised
Intervention model
Parallel groups
Masking
None (open label)
Enrolment
38 participants (actual)
IDs, dates and publications
ClinicalTrials.gov ID
NCT01302314
Sponsor's protocol ID
HSØ-2011041
Status last verified
Jan 2014
First submitted
23 Feb 2011
Last updated
22 Jan 2014
Results posted
No
Data monitoring committee
No

Questions about this trial

What is this clinical trial studying?

A study testing Goal management training (GMT) in people with Executive Dysfunction and Cognitive Deficits, run by Jan Stubberud 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 3 inclusion and 4 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 22 Jan 2014. 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?

Self and informant report of cognitive difficulties (time frame: Baseline, 3 months and 6 months). The study lists 6 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.

Where can I read the original study information?
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 22 Jan 2014.

Free account

Log in to keep searching

You’ve used your 3 free searches. AzTrials is free: log in or create a free account to keep searching clinical trials and save the ones you want to follow.

Create a free accountLog in