Evaluating the Use of Smart Home Technology by People With Brain Impairment: Protocol for a Single-Case Experimental Design

Background Smart home technologies are emerging as a useful component of support delivery for people with brain impairment. To promote their successful uptake and sustained use, focus on technology support services, including training, is required. Objective The objective of this paper is to present a systematic smart home technology training approach for people with brain impairment. In addition, the paper outlines a multiple-baseline, single-case experimental design methodology to evaluate training effectiveness. Methods Adult participants experiencing acquired brain impairment who can provide consent to participate and who live in housing where smart home technology is available will be recruited. Target behaviors will be identified in consultation with each participant based on his or her personal goals for technology use. Target behaviors may include participant knowledge of the number and type of technology functions available, frequency of smart home technology use, and number of function types used. Usage data will be gathered via log-on smart home technology servers. A smart technology digital training package will also be developed and left on a nominated device (smartphone, tablet) with each participant to use during the trial and posttrial, as desired. Measures of the target behavior will be taken throughout the baseline, intervention, and postintervention phases to provide the evidence of impact of the training on the target behaviors and ascertain whether utilization rates are sustained over time. In addition, trial results will be analyzed using structured visual analysis, supplemented with statistical analysis appropriate to single-case methodology. Results While ascertaining the effectiveness of this training protocol, study results will offer new insights into technology-related training approaches for people with brain impairment. Preliminary data collection has been commenced at one supported housing site, with further scoping work continuing to recruit participants from additional sites. Conclusions Evaluation evidence will assist in planning for the smart technology set-up as well as training and support services necessary to accompany the provision of new devices and systems. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID) RR1-10.2196/10451

[1]  M. Oddy,et al.  Cost effective ways of facilitating home based rehabilitation and support. , 2013, NeuroRehabilitation.

[2]  B. Wilson.  Cognitive rehabilitation, an integrative neuropsychological approach , 2002 .

[3]  Robyn L Tate,et al.  Applying Empirical Methods in Clinical Practice: Introducing the Model for Assessing Treatment Effect , 2013, The Journal of head trauma rehabilitation.

[4]  J. Jutai,et al.  Psychosocial Impact of Assistive Devices Scale (PIADS) , 2002 .

[5]  T. Felicetti.  Optimizing Cognitive Rehabilitation: Effective Instructional Methods , 2012 .

[6]  L. Farnworth,et al.  Electronic assistive technology used by people with acquired brain injury in shared supported accommodation: Implications for occupational therapy , 2017 .

[7]  M. Wild.  Assistive Technology for Cognition Following Brain Injury: Guidelines for Device and App Selection , 2013 .

[8]  J. Hammel,et al.  Consumer-Directed Goal Planning in the Delivery of Assistive Technology Services for People Who Are Ageing with Intellectual Disabilities. , 2009 .

[9]  Laurie A. Ehlhardt,et al.  TEACH-M: A pilot study evaluating an instructional sequence for persons with impaired memory and executive functions , 2005, Brain injury.

[10]  Rajeev Piyare,et al.  Internet of Things: Ubiquitous Home Control and Monitoring System using Android based Smart Phone , 2013, IOT 2013.

[11]  Libby Callaway,et al.  Evaluating Access and Mobility within a New Model of Supported Housing for People with Neurotrauma: A Pilot Study , 2016, Brain Impairment.

[12]  Dipti P. Wale,et al.  Home Automation using Cloud Network and Mobile Devices , 2015 .

[13]  Jeffrey W. Jutai,et al.  Psychosocial Impact of Assistive Devices Scale , 2016 .

[14]  Jeremy Linskell,et al.  Smart home technology for safety and functional independence: the UK experience. , 2011, NeuroRehabilitation.

[15]  R. Tate,et al.  Bringing Single-case Methodology into the Clinic to Enhance Evidence-based Practices , 2012, Brain Impairment.

[16]  Tony Gentry.  Smart homes for people with neurological disability: state of the art. , 2009, NeuroRehabilitation.

[17]  Jonathan J. Evans,et al.  Neuropsychological Rehabilitation: An International , 2013 .

[18]  Alan E. Kazdin,et al.  Single-Case Research Designs: Methods for Clinical and Applied Settings , 2010 .

[19]  Louise Demers,et al.  The Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology (QUEST 2.0): An overview and recent progress , 2002 .

[20]  L. Farnworth,et al.  Electronic assistive technology use in Australian shared supported accommodation: rates and user characteristics , 2018, Disability and rehabilitation. Assistive technology.

[21]  V. Vimarlund,et al.  Big Data, Smart Homes and Ambient Assisted Living , 2014, Yearbook of Medical Informatics.

[22]  Leanne Togher,et al.  Rating the methodological quality of single-subject designs and n-of-1 trials: Introducing the Single-Case Experimental Design (SCED) Scale , 2008, Neuropsychological rehabilitation.

[23]  M. Sohlberg,et al.  Systematic instruction for individuals with acquired brain injury: Results of a randomised controlled trial , 2012, Neuropsychological rehabilitation.

[24]  J. Ponsford,et al.  Smartphones as assistive technology following traumatic brain injury: a preliminary study of what helps and what hinders , 2017, Disability and rehabilitation.

[25]  Emily J. Steel,et al.  Currency and Competence of Occupational Therapists and Consumers with Rapidly Changing Technology , 2017, Occupational therapy international.

[26]  R. Tate,et al.  Single-Case Experimental Designs for Clinical Research and Neurorehabilitation Settings , 2018 .