The research team, led by Catherine Paterson of Flinders University in Australia alongside collaborators from institutions across Australia, the United States, Norway and Singapore, screened nearly 3,000 articles and included 34 randomised or quasi-randomised trials involving 1,988 children and adolescents across 17 countries. Unlike previous syntheses that focused narrowly on long-term survivors, this review deliberately covered the entire cancer care continuum, from diagnosis through active treatment and into survivorship, and evaluated three distinct outcome domains: neurocognitive function, psychological wellbeing and health-related quality of life. The scale and breadth of the analysis make it, according to the authors, the most comprehensive of its kind for this population to date.

The clearest signal emerged for neurocognitive outcomes. Cognitive interventions, including structured cognitive rehabilitation and computerised training programmes, produced a significant moderate benefit, with a standardised mean difference of 0.51 and, remarkably, zero heterogeneity across studies, meaning the effect was strikingly consistent. The benefit was strongest for working memory, which showed a standardised mean difference of 0.54, followed by a composite of other cognitive domains including metacognitive skills, executive function, processing speed and attention. This consistency matters clinically because neurocognitive impairment affects nearly half of survivors treated with central nervous system-directed therapy, damaging precisely the attention, working memory and processing-speed systems that these interventions appear to target. The mechanistic logic is plausible: repetitive, structured cognitive training exercises the very neural circuits that chemotherapy and radiotherapy disrupt.

Psychological outcomes told a more complicated story. Interventions spanning play and creative therapies, animal-assisted therapy, self-management education and physical activity produced a significant overall improvement, with a standardised mean difference of 0.42, but the heterogeneity statistic of 70.1 percent revealed substantial variability between studies. Drilling down, the benefit was driven almost entirely by anxiety, which showed a significant reduction with a standardised mean difference of 0.57. Depression, coping and self-worth showed no statistically significant effects. The authors offer a compelling explanation: many psychosocial interventions act on acute, state-based arousal around procedures and treatment, which anxiety responds to readily, whereas depression and self-concept are more trait-like constructs that evolve over longer horizons and may require higher-intensity or longer-duration programmes. The null findings may also simply reflect insufficient statistical power, given the small number of studies per outcome.

The largest pooled effect appeared for health-related quality of life, where animal-assisted therapy, play and creative therapies and physical activity interventions achieved a standardised mean difference of 0.80, a large effect by conventional benchmarks. Yet this headline number comes with a caveat: heterogeneity was very high at 87.1 percent, indicating that true effects varied enormously across contexts. Within this domain, pain showed the most dramatic benefit, with a standardised mean difference of 1.10, while fatigue and general quality of life showed no significant effects. The divergence between strong domain-specific pain relief and null effects on global quality of life likely reflects both measurement inconsistency, with generic and disease-specific instruments capturing different constructs, and the inherent difficulty of shifting a multidimensional construct with single-modality interventions delivered over short periods.

The interventions themselves were remarkably diverse. The included trials tested art therapy, jewellery making, cognitive rehabilitation, child life services, aqua therapy, web-based and game-based physical activity, immersive virtual reality, self-management education, massage, music therapy and complementary therapies, with durations ranging from a single session to 24 weeks. Study populations were similarly heterogeneous, mixing clinically diverse cancer samples with cohorts focused specifically on leukaemia or brain tumours. This diversity is both a strength, demonstrating the breadth of approaches being trialled worldwide, and a limitation, because pooling across such varied modalities means the estimates speak to the promise of psychosocial intervention as a category rather than to the precise efficacy of any single therapy.

Perhaps the most sobering finding concerns what has not been tested. Not a single trial in the review targeted the pre-treatment window, the prehabilitation phase where early psychosocial support could theoretically prevent rather than react to treatment-related harm. The authors note that while urgent treatment initiation often precludes preparation time, solid-tumour pathways frequently allow lead time during which coordinated, interprofessional psychosocial input could begin. Equally striking was the absence of theory: most included studies did not report using any theoretical framework to guide intervention design, and only four explicitly referenced models such as Social Cognitive Theory, self-efficacy theory or Lazarus’ transactional model of stress and coping. Co-design with children, families and clinicians was almost entirely absent, and many trials applied a one-size-fits-all approach across age spans as wide as 1 to 18 years, despite the profound developmental differences between a toddler and a teenager.

Methodological quality was moderate overall: 44 percent of studies were judged at low risk of bias, 53 percent at moderate risk and one at high risk. The main concerns centred on blinding, an inherent challenge for behavioural interventions where participants and providers inevitably know what treatment is being delivered, rather than on retention or statistical conduct, which were generally well handled. The authors also acknowledge that publication bias could not be formally assessed because each meta-analysis included fewer than ten studies, and that non-English-language research may have been missed. Developmental age could not be explored quantitatively because most trials reported age only as aggregate data across broad, overlapping ranges, making age-stratified analysis statistically underpowered and potentially misleading.

For clinicians and families, the practical takeaways are reasonably clear. Cognitive remediation is a credible candidate for integration into survivorship pathways for children treated with CNS-directed therapy, though optimal timing, dose and delivery format remain undefined. Brief psychosocial interventions show the most promise for state anxiety around procedures and treatment, while symptom-targeted approaches for procedural pain represent the most mature near-term application. Durable effects on mood, self-concept and global quality of life, by contrast, will likely require sustained, multimodal, theory-driven models of supportive care rather than short, single-modality programmes. The authors also call for wider adoption of paediatric oncology core outcome sets to improve comparability across future trials.

The review ultimately paints a field in transition: one where the promise of psychosocial care for young cancer patients is real and measurable in specific domains, but where the evidence base remains fragmented by small samples, inconsistent measures and atheoretical design. Future trials, the authors argue, should identify optimal intervention timing, dosage and delivery format, stratify outcomes by age, diagnosis and treatment intensity, and embrace implementation science to ensure that effective interventions actually reach routine clinical practice. For the hundreds of thousands of children diagnosed each year, and for the survivors who carry cognitive and psychological scars long into adulthood, the message is that help exists and works, but the science of exactly what to deliver, when and to whom is still being written.

Subject of Research: Effectiveness of psychosocial interventions for neurocognitive, psychological and quality-of-life outcomes in children and adolescents with cancer across the care continuum

Article Title: Psychosocial interventions for children and adolescents across the cancer care continuum: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Article References: Paterson, C., McCarthy, M. C., Sansom-Daly, U. M., Wakefield, C. E., Turner, M. R., Christina, J., Roberts, C., Moss, C., Thamm, C., Carmichael, M.-A., Johansen, S., Atkinson, M., Osborn, M., Singh, B., & Ramsey, I. (2026). Psychosocial interventions for children and adolescents across the cancer care continuum: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Supportive Care in Cancer, 34(10), Article 995. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-026-11176-x

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1007/s00520-026-11176-x

Keywords: psychosocial interventions, pediatric oncology, systematic review, meta-analysis, cognitive rehabilitation, working memory, anxiety, pain management, quality of life, animal-assisted therapy, cancer survivors, supportive care

The trial enrolled 33 residents, aged 60 to 99, from one public and one private long-term care facility. Fifteen of the participants were men, and the group spanned a wide educational range, from 18 people who had never learned to read to five with more than eight years of schooling. To qualify, volunteers had to demonstrate preserved cognitive function on the Mini-Mental State Examination, with cutoff scores adjusted for education level, and they were excluded if they had severe uncorrected sensory impairments, were taking sedative medications, or could not give informed consent. Using block randomization, the team assigned participants either to an immediate intervention group or to a delayed-intervention control group that continued the institution’s routine activities before crossing over to receive the same virtual reality protocol later in the study.

The technology itself was deliberately simple. Exposure was delivered through an Oculus Quest 2, a standalone headset that requires no external computer or wiring, making it practical for institutional settings. Participants rotated through three distinct ten-minute 360-degree scenarios accessed through a publicly available application: a beach with calm waves and underwater exploration, an open field with wildlife and natural sounds, and an urban simulation with pedestrians and moving vehicles. Sessions were held twice a week at two-day intervals over eight weeks, for a total of 16 sessions, always in the morning one to two hours after breakfast. The design drew on cognitive rehabilitation theory and multisensory stimulation, the idea that rich, engaging sensory environments can exercise attention, memory, and executive functions while simultaneously promoting calm.

Measuring what happened inside participants required a layered assessment strategy. Global cognition was screened with the Montreal Cognitive Assessment, verbal episodic memory with the Rey Auditory-Verbal Learning Test, working memory with the Digit Span subtest of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-III, and focused and divided attention with the Psychological Battery for Attention. Emotional health was tracked with the Geriatric Depression Scale and the SF-36 Quality of Life Questionnaire, while anxiety was assessed with the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Perhaps most distinctive was the physiological monitoring: a digital oximeter recorded peripheral oxygen saturation and heart rate, and a sphygmomanometer measured blood pressure at three standardized time points in every session, five minutes before the headset went on, five minutes into the virtual experience, and immediately after it was removed.

The cognitive results were the study’s clearest signal. After the 16 sessions, the intervention group showed statistically significant improvements on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment, indicating better global cognitive function, and significant gains on the Rey Auditory-Verbal Learning Test, suggesting enhanced learning capacity and overall memory performance. The researchers also documented a significant increase in the total average information retrieval capacity and relevant improvements in divided attention. When the two groups were compared before the crossover phase, the virtual reality group consistently outperformed the controls across most cognitive metrics, including reduced interference in retroactive attention, meaning that new information interfered less with the retrieval of previously learned material. The delayed-intervention group did improve after receiving its own virtual reality protocol, but the gains were more pronounced in the group that had been exposed first.

The physiological data told a quieter but equally compelling story. Across all 16 sessions, the average heart rate of participants declined significantly, from 79 beats per minute on the first day to 73 beats per minute on the sixteenth, a reduction the authors interpret as evidence of a genuine relaxation response rather than mere habituation to the equipment. Blood oxygen saturation remained stable or improved slightly throughout. Among the three environments, the beach scene elicited the most pronounced calming effect, corroborated both by the heart rate data and by participants’ frequent reports of tranquility. Intriguingly, standardized emotional health instruments, including the depression scale and the anxiety inventory, did not register statistically significant changes, even though participants consistently described feeling relaxed and enjoying the sessions. The authors suggest the eight-week window may have been too short, or the instruments too blunt, to capture subtle emotional shifts.

One of the study’s most striking findings had nothing to do with test scores. A common assumption in gerontechnology research is that elderly people will resist or avoid novel devices, yet the opposite occurred. Participants eagerly anticipated their sessions, and several expressed disappointment on days when they were not selected for the virtual reality activity. This enthusiasm challenges prevailing stereotypes about older adults’ aversion to technology and carries practical weight, because adherence is often the limiting factor in any long-term therapeutic program. An intervention that residents actively want, rather than merely tolerate, has a built-in advantage over conventional cognitive training drills.

The findings align with a growing body of literature showing that virtual reality can improve health markers, including balance, muscle strength, and cognition, in institutionalized older adults, and that virtual reality-based cognitive training benefits people with mild cognitive impairment and dementia. The relaxation effect is consistent with prior work suggesting that immersive media provides a non-invasive way to stimulate cognitive function while promoting engagement. The study also situates itself within a broader public health context: the World Health Organization projects that in several developing countries the elderly population will soon surpass the number of children, and institutionalization is known to contribute to psychological distress, loss of identity, and cognitive decline. Interventions that are inexpensive, safe, and enjoyable could therefore have outsized value as global demographics shift.

The authors are careful to frame the work as a proof of concept rather than a definitive trial. The sample of 33 participants is small and was drawn from just two institutions, which limits generalizability, and the study measured immediate outcomes without long-term follow-up, though a follow-up is planned. The physiological instruments were optimized for safety monitoring rather than fine-grained assessment of autonomic arousal, and future studies could incorporate heart rate variability or electrodermal activity, along with standardized emotional scales administered immediately before and after exposure. Unmeasured differences in medication remain a potential confounder. Still, the combination of significant cognitive gains, a documented relaxation response, and genuine participant enthusiasm makes a strong case that immersive virtual reality deserves larger, longer, and more diverse trials. For a population often defined by what it has lost, a technology that restores a morning at the beach, and measurably sharpens the mind while doing so, is a finding worth watching closely.

Subject of Research: Effects of immersive virtual reality on cognition and relaxation in institutionalized elderly people

Article Title: Improvements in Cognition and Promoting Relaxation: A Preliminary Study of Immersive Virtual Reality for Institutionalized Elderly

Article References: Couzem, C., Soares, A., Castro, N. S. R., Salvalaio, C., Moura, W., Kato, S. K., & de Oliveira, A. A. (2026). Improvements in Cognition and Promoting Relaxation: A Preliminary Study of Immersive Virtual Reality for Institutionalized Elderly. Trends in Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43076-026-00515-w

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1007/s43076-026-00515-w

Keywords: virtual reality, elderly, cognitive decline, long-term care, memory, attention, relaxation, randomized controlled trial, gerontology, heart rate, cognitive rehabilitation, well-being

The research, conducted by Haniyeh Shakery Chenary, Kolsoum Akbarnataj Bisheh, and Ebrahim Mohammadian Akerdi, recruited 54 students with dyslexia aged 8 to 12 years from learning disorder centers in Babol, a city in northern Iran. The children, both boys and girls, were selected according to inclusion criteria using a convenience sampling method and then randomly assigned to one of three groups of 18 participants each: a cognitive-behavioral play therapy group, a cognitive rehabilitation group, and a control group that received no intervention. The study followed a pre-test, post-test design with a one-month follow-up, allowing the researchers to track not only whether the treatments worked immediately but whether their effects persisted.

To measure executive functions, the team used the Brief Executive Function Behavioral Rating Questionnaire, an instrument designed to capture everyday manifestations of executive control as observed in children’s behavior. Executive functions are typically broken down into core components: inhibitory control, the ability to suppress impulsive responses; working memory, the capacity to hold and manipulate information in mind; and cognitive flexibility, the skill of shifting between tasks or mental sets. In children with dyslexia, deficits in these domains are well documented and are thought to compound the phonological processing difficulties that define the disorder, making reading acquisition and academic performance even harder.

The results were striking in their symmetry. After the interventions, post-test scores for executive functions decreased significantly in both treatment groups—lower scores on this behavioral rating measure indicating fewer executive function problems, and therefore improvement. Statistical analysis using repeated-measures analysis of variance confirmed that these changes were highly significant, with p values below .001, and crucially, the improvements were maintained at the one-month follow-up. The control group, by contrast, showed no comparable change. In practical terms, both therapies appeared to equip children with better self-regulation, attention, and mental control, and those benefits did not evaporate once the sessions stopped.

Perhaps the most intriguing finding, however, was what the researchers did not find. When the two intervention groups were compared head to head, no statistically significant difference emerged between them (p > .05). Cognitive-behavioral play therapy, with its emphasis on emotional expression and behavioral learning through play, proved just as effective as cognitive rehabilitation, a more direct, exercise-based approach to training cognitive skills. This equivalence matters, because it suggests that clinicians and schools may be able to choose the modality that best fits a particular child, setting, or budget without sacrificing therapeutic benefit.

The mechanisms behind the two approaches differ in fascinating ways. Cognitive rehabilitation is grounded in neuropsychology: it involves repeated, structured practice on tasks designed to strengthen specific cognitive operations, much like physical therapy targets particular muscle groups. Modern implementations range from paper-and-pencil exercises to computerized and even virtual reality-based programs, and the approach has been applied across populations from stroke survivors to children with learning disabilities. The underlying premise is neuroplasticity—that targeted, progressive challenge can reshape the efficiency of the neural networks supporting attention and memory.

Cognitive-behavioral play therapy, by contrast, marries the principles of cognitive-behavioral therapy with the natural language of childhood: play. Rather than asking an 8-year-old to sit through abstract discussions of thoughts and feelings, the therapist embeds cognitive and behavioral strategies in games, stories, and imaginative scenarios. Through play, children rehearse self-control, practice problem-solving, learn to tolerate frustration, and internalize coping strategies. For children with dyslexia, who frequently experience academic failure, shame, and anxiety around reading, this format may address both the cognitive deficits and the emotional fallout that accompany them. Previous research has linked poor reading to elevated rates of internalizing problems such as anxiety and depression, and to diminished self-concept, making an intervention that works through an enjoyable, low-pressure medium particularly appealing.

The study’s authors frame their findings against a sobering backdrop. Many children with dyslexia face poor academic and career outcomes, and their difficulties extend beyond phonological processing to attention and executive functions. Executive dysfunction in dyslexia has been documented in neuropsychological studies across multiple countries, and deficits in working memory have been shown to correlate with reading performance. Because executive functions also predict broader academic achievement and classroom learning behaviors, improving them may yield dividends that go well beyond reading itself—better task completion, stronger self-regulation, and greater capacity to benefit from reading instruction.

The quasi-experimental design, while robust for a clinical field study, does carry limitations worth noting. The sample was drawn from learning disorder centers in a single city using convenience sampling, which may limit how broadly the findings generalize. The outcome measure relied on a behavioral rating questionnaire rather than direct neuropsychological testing, and the follow-up period was one month, leaving open the question of whether benefits persist over longer horizons. Still, the randomized assignment to groups, the inclusion of a control condition, and the follow-up assessment give the findings a credibility that many small clinical studies lack. The researchers also report that the study protocol and ethics code were approved by the Ethics Committee of Islamic Azad University, Sari Branch, and that caregiver consent and child assent were obtained before data collection.

For clinicians, educators, and parents, the takeaway is refreshingly practical: two effective, accessible, and fundamentally different treatments can improve the executive functions of children with dyslexia, and neither holds a decisive advantage. Cognitive rehabilitation offers a targeted, skills-drilling route for settings equipped with structured programs, while cognitive-behavioral play therapy offers a developmentally sensitive, emotionally attuned alternative that children may find inherently motivating. The authors conclude that both can be used as effective and accessible therapeutic approaches for treating students with dyslexia. In a field where families often face long waiting lists and expensive specialized services, evidence that two distinct pathways lead to the same destination is genuinely good news—and a reminder that the developing brain, given the right kind of support, can be nudged toward stronger self-regulation and control.

Subject of Research: Comparing cognitive-behavioral play therapy and cognitive rehabilitation for improving executive functions in students with dyslexia

Article Title: The Effectiveness of Cognitive-Behavioral Play Therapy and Cognitive Rehabilitation on Executive Functions in Students With Dyslexia

Article References: Shakery Chenary, H., Akbarnataj Bisheh, K., & Mohammadian Akerdi, E. (2026). The Effectiveness of Cognitive-Behavioral Play Therapy and Cognitive Rehabilitation on Executive Functions in Students With Dyslexia. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-026-07548-1

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1007/s10803-026-07548-1

Keywords: dyslexia, executive functions, cognitive-behavioral play therapy, cognitive rehabilitation, working memory, inhibitory control, cognitive flexibility, learning disorders, child psychology, intervention study, neuropsychology, academic outcomes

The research, led by M. Ø. Lindstad and colleagues at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Oslo Metropolitan University and Oslo University Hospital, tested the Perceive, Recall, Plan and Perform (PRPP) Intervention in three adults over the age of 67 who were receiving home-based rehabilitation after acquired brain injury. Rather than a traditional clinical trial, the team used single-case experimental designs with multiple baselines, a methodology well suited to rehabilitation research where participants are heterogeneous and recruiting large groups is difficult. Each participant acted as their own control, with repeated measurements taken during staggered baseline phases before the intervention was introduced, allowing the researchers to demonstrate a functional relationship between treatment and improvement.

The PRPP system is grounded in an information-processing model of cognition. It frames everyday task performance as a continuous loop of four processes: perceiving incoming sensory information, recalling stored knowledge, planning and evaluating responses, and monitoring performance as the task unfolds. The assessment stage catalogues how a person applies 35 observable cognitive strategies—called descriptors—during a chosen activity, rating each as efficient, questionable or ineffective. The intervention stage then works on those weak links directly. Therapists use a structured prompting sequence, ‘Stop, Attend, Sense, Think, Do’, deploying verbal, visual or physical cues calibrated to each client’s cognitive profile. As the client grows more proficient, the therapist deliberately withdraws support, transferring control of the strategies to the client so that they can be generalised across tasks and settings.

Crucially, the intervention took place where cognitive difficulties actually bite: in participants’ own homes. Three Norwegian municipal home-based rehabilitation teams delivered the programme, which consisted of nine sessions over three weeks. Each participant selected one personally meaningful task as the focus of treatment. For one participant, pseudonymised as Helge, the goal was to write and send an email independently—something that had become laborious and error-prone since his brain injury. For Georg, it was putting on a sweater, a task that had defeated him despite his physical capability, apparently due to insecurity and learned non-use of intact skills. For Frank, it was brewing coffee, a multi-step activity in which he would omit critical steps such as filling the water reservoir or inserting the filter.

The results were measured with the PRPP Assessment Stage 1, which scores percent task mastery from 0 to 100, with independence set at a cut-off above 85 percent. Visual analysis of graphed data across baseline, intervention, post-intervention and follow-up phases was complemented by Tau-U, a statistical technique that combines non-overlap between phases with trend analysis within the intervention phase. All three participants showed clear improvements in task mastery, with 70 to 100 percent of intervention and follow-up data points exceeding baseline levels. Individual Tau-U values ranged from 0.8 to 1.0, and the weighted average across participants reached 0.94 for task mastery when baseline was compared with post-intervention and follow-up phases—a magnitude classified as a very large effect.

Equally important, the gains held. Improvements persisted immediately after the intervention ended and again at follow-up four weeks later, even though the therapists had by then withdrawn all prompting. Georg achieved full independence in dressing and scored beyond his expected goal on Goal Attainment Scaling, a change with ripple effects: he could get out of bed and stay warm in his wheelchair without waiting for home care staff, easing pressure on an entire morning routine. Frank maintained performance above the independence threshold four weeks after his final session and managed untrained tasks, such as collecting post from a locker and pouring coffee into a thermos, using the strategies he had acquired. His Barthel Index score had already been at the maximum of 20, illustrating a limitation of broad functional measures in capturing task-specific change.

Not every outcome was uniform. Helge achieved 100 percent task mastery only intermittently during follow-up, fluctuating between complete independence and partial dependence on the email task. The authors suggest that intellectual familiarity with a cognitive strategy is not the same as internalising it, and that the meaningfulness of the task itself may have played a role. Helge was approaching retirement, and the email task was anchored to a working identity that was fading; his motivation, they note in light of prior rehabilitation research, may have shifted accordingly. His residual difficulties clustered in the planning quadrant, and errors in follow-up were mostly about time efficiency rather than accuracy—yet he still reported confidence in sending emails on his own.

The study addresses a well-documented gap. Recent Cochrane reviews concluded that evidence for occupational therapy in cognitive impairment after stroke, and for cognitive rehabilitation in adults with acquired brain injury, remains insufficient and of low quality—drawn mostly from hospital settings and often from computer-based remediation aimed at impairments rather than real-world function. Evidence-based guidelines instead favour performance-focused, strategy-based, compensatory approaches, precisely the category into which the PRPP Intervention falls. Meanwhile, community-based occupational therapists, particularly generalists in small municipalities, report lacking the specialised competencies and evidence-based tools they need to serve clients with cognitive challenges. A system designed to apply across diagnoses, ages, severities and contexts could fill that void, though the authors caution that adoption requires cultural change within services and funding for the specialised PRPP training.

The authors are candid about limitations. Data collection by the therapists who delivered the intervention introduces potential bias, although blinded inter-observer agreement checks on 20 percent of sessions mostly exceeded the 80 percent acceptability threshold. Frank completed only eight sessions and fewer follow-up measurements than planned, partly because of impatience once he considered himself independent, though his perfectly stable baseline and daily independent performance partially offset the missing data. Crucially, the generalisation of cognitive strategies to untrained tasks could not be conclusively established, because new tasks were measured at only a single point. The Barthel Index, moreover, proved too coarse an instrument for home-based contexts, hitting ceiling effects and missing the richer activities that matter in daily life.

Even so, the study’s ecological validity is its signature strength. By measuring outcomes on the very tasks participants needed and wanted to perform, in the environments where they live, the research captures the kind of functional change that laboratory-based cognitive training often fails to deliver—and that randomised trials with underpowered samples have struggled to demonstrate. Single-case experimental designs, the authors argue, can generate robust evidence close to ordinary clinical practice even with small numbers, and they call for systematic replication, including multiple-baseline designs across behaviours within participants, to test whether strategy use truly transfers to novel and more complex activities. If the very large effects observed here hold up across that replication series, a structured prompting method delivered in a client’s own kitchen or living room may become one of the most practical weapons yet against the hidden cognitive toll of brain injury.

Subject of Research: Effectiveness of the PRPP cognitive strategy intervention for task performance in home-based rehabilitation after acquired brain injury

Article Title: Effectiveness of the PRPP Intervention after brain injury in home-based rehabilitation: Single-case experimental designs with multiple baselines

Article References: Lindstad, M. Ø., Obstfelder, A., Sveen, U., & Stigen, L. (2025). Effectiveness of the PRPP Intervention after brain injury in home-based rehabilitation: Single-case experimental designs with multiple baselines. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 32(1), Article 2444591. https://doi.org/10.1080/11038128.2024.2444591

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1080/11038128.2024.2444591

Keywords: cognitive rehabilitation, PRPP Intervention, acquired brain injury, home-based rehabilitation, occupational therapy, cognitive strategy use, task mastery, single-case experimental design, stroke, Tau-U, evidence-based practice, Effectiveness