Mood, Activity Participation, and Leisure Engagement Satisfaction (MAPLES): A Pilot Feasibility Study for Low Mood in Acquired Brain Injury
Phase: NA
Conditions: Acquired Brain Injury, Depression
Sponsor: University of Cambridge

  
 
 
FULL/LONG TITLE OF THE STUDY 
Mood, Activity Participation, and Leisure Engagement Satisfaction (MAPLES): A Pilot Feasibility Study 
for Low Mood in Acquired Brain Injury. 
SHORT STUDY TITLE / ACRONYM 
MAPLES Pilot Study for Low Mood in ABI. 
PROTOCOL VERSION NUMBER AND DATE 
Version 2.3, May 26th 2020 
RESEARCH REFERENCE NUMBERS 
 
IRAS Number: 
244647 
 
SPONSORS Number: 
Generated by the Sponsor. Enter if applicable 
 
FUNDERS Number: 
Generated by the funder. Enter if applicable 
 
 
 

 
MAPLES Pilot Study for Low Mood 
in ABI 
 
ii 
Protocol Version 2.3 
May 26th 2020 
 
SIGNATURE PAGE 
The undersigned confirm that the following protocol has been agreed and accepted and that the Chief 
Investigator agrees to conduct the study in compliance with the approved protocol and will adhere to 
the principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki, the Sponsor’s SOPs, and other regulatory 
requirement. 
I agree to ensure that the confidential information contained in this document will not be used for any 
other purpose other than the evaluation or conduct of the investigation without the prior written 
consent of the Sponsor 
I also confirm that I will make the findings of the study publicly available through publication or other 
dissemination tools without any unnecessary delay and that an honest accurate and transparent 
account of the study will be given; and that any discrepancies from the study as planned in this 
protocol will be explained. 
 
Chief Investigator: 
Signature: 
...................................................................................................... 
 
Date: 
26/05/2020 
 
 
 
Name: (please print): Dr. Tom Manly 
......................................................................................................
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
MAPLES Pilot Study for Low Mood 
in ABI 
 
iii 
Protocol Version 2.3 
May 26th 2020 
 
KEY STUDY CONTACTS 
 
Chief Investigator 
Dr. Tom Manly 
Programme Leader  
MRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit 
15 Chaucer Road 
Cambridge, UK CB2 7EF 
Tel: (0)1223 767666 
Email: tom.manly@mrc-cbu.cam.ac.uk 
Study Co-ordinator 
Ms. Andrea Kusec 
PhD Candidate 
MRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit 
15 Chaucer Road 
Cambridge, UK CB2 7EF 
Tel: (0)1223 769720 
Email: andrea.kusec@mrc-cbu.cam.ac.uk 
Sponsor 
The University of Cambridge 
Contact: Ms Carolyn Read 
School of Clinical Medicine 
Box 111 Cambridge Biomedical Campus 
Cambridge, UK, CB2 0SP 
Tel: (0)1223 769291 
Email: cad50@medschl.cam.ac.uk 
Funder(s) 
MRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit 
Key Protocol Contributors 
Dr. Tom Manly 
Programme Leader  
MRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit 
15 Chaucer Road 
Cambridge, UK CB2 7EF 
Tel: (0)1223 767666 
Email: tom.manly@mrc-cbu.cam.ac.uk 
 
Ms. Andrea Kusec 
PhD Candidate 

 
MAPLES Pilot Study for Low Mood 
in ABI 
 
iv 
Protocol Version 2.3 
May 26th 2020 
 
MRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit 
15 Chaucer Road 
Cambridge, UK CB2 7EF 
Tel: (0)1223 769720 
Email: andrea.kusec@mrc-cbu.cam.ac.uk 
 
Dr. Fionnuala Murphy 
Investigator Scientist 
MRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit 
15 Chaucer Road 
Cambridge, UK CB2 7EF 
Tel: (0)1223 355294 x226 
Email: Fionnuala.murphy@mrc-cbu.cam.ac.uk 
 
Dr. Polly Peers 
Investigator Scientist 
MRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit 
15 Chaucer Road 
Cambridge, UK CB2 7EF 
Tel: (0)1223 355294 x227 
Email: polly.peers@mrc-cbu.cam.ac.uk 
Dr. Andrew Bateman 
Clinical Manager, Cambridgeshire Community Services 
Princess of Wales Hospital  
Ely, UK CB6 1DNTel: (0)1353 652165 
Email: Andrew.bateman@nhs.net 
Dr. Judith Allanson 
Neurological Rehabilitation Service Lead, Neuro and 
Trauma Rehabilitation Addenbrooke’s, Cambridge Clinical 
Lead Evelyn Community Head Injury Services 
Addenbrooke’s Hospital 
Hills Road 
Cambridge, UK CB2 0QQ 
Tel: (0)1223 217870 

 
MAPLES Pilot Study for Low Mood 
in ABI 
 
v 
Protocol Version 2.3 
May 26th 2020 
 
Email: Judith.allanson.1@gmail.com 
 
Dr. Peter Watson 
Unit Statistician 
MRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit 
15 Chaucer Road 
Cambridge, UK CB2 7EF 
Tel: (0)1223 273712 
Email: peter.watson@mrc-cbu.cam.ac.uk 
 
Ms. Cara Lawrence 
Occupational Therapist 
Evelyn Community Head Injury Services, Cambridgeshire 
Community Services 
DynamicHealth Building, Brookfields Hospital 
351 Mill Road 
Cambridge, UK CB1 3DF 
Tel: (0)1223 868170 
Email: cara.lawrence@nhs.net 
Dr. Pieter DuToit 
Principal Clinical Psychologist, Oliver Zangwill Centre 
Princess of Wales Hospital, Ely, CB6 1DN 
Tel: 01353 652168 
Email. p.dutoit@nhs.net  
Dr. Fahim Anwar 
Consultant in Rehabilitation Medicine, CUH NHS Trust 
Addenbrooke’s Hospital 
Hills Road 
Cambridge, UK, CB2 0QQ 
Tel: 01223 245151 
Email: fanwar@nhs.net 
Additional Researchers 
Ms. Verity Smith 
PhD Candidate 
MRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit 

 
MAPLES Pilot Study for Low Mood 
in ABI 
 
vi 
Protocol Version 2.3 
May 26th 2020 
 
15 Chaucer Road 
Cambridge, UK B2 7EF 
Tel: (0) 1223 769462 
Email: verity.smith@mrc-cbu.cam.ac.uk 
 
Dr. James Stefaniak 
PhD Candidate 
MRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit 
15 Chaucer Road 
Cambridge, UK CB2 7EF 
Tel: (0)1223 769903 
Email: james.stefaniak@mrc-cbu.cam.ac.uk 
 
Dr. Ausaf Farooqui 
PhD Candidate 
MRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit 
15 Chaucer Road 
Cambridge UK CB2 7EF 
Tel: (0)1223 769440 
Email: Ausaf.farooqui@mrc-cbu.cam.ac.uk 
Committees 
Steering Committee- consisting of above named key 
protocol contributors and a service user  
 
STUDY SUMMARY 
Low mood/depression occurs at significantly elevated rate following acquired brain injury (ABI). 
Unfortunately, we lack a good evidence-base for ameliorative interventions in this group. Cognitive 
Behavioural Therapy, for example, appears to be less effective following ABI because of the heavy 
demands it places on memory, mental flexibility, and comprehension. Behavioural Activation (BA), 
which places much lower demands on these abilities, is a promising alternative. Depression leads to 
reduced participation in potentially meaningful and/or enjoyable activities – people may have difficulty 
anticipating positive experiences, avoid situations through fear of negative outcomes, find it hard to 
plan or initiate activities etc. This situation is likely to be exacerbated after ABI where physical and 
cognitive problems can present additional barriers. The central tenet of BA, which has established 
efficacy in reducing depression in the general population, is that this lack of positive reinforcement 
creates a cycle that perpetuates low mood. Put simply, it aims to reverse this by helping individuals to 
schedule and engage in activities. Here we seek to examine the feasibility and acceptability of two 
group approaches to increasing engagement in meaningful activities in adults with an ABI. The first 
approach will train participants to plan and engage in pleasurable activities outside of the group and 
develop skills to overcome barriers to engagement. This group will explicitly help participants 

 
MAPLES Pilot Study for Low Mood 
in ABI 
 
vii 
Protocol Version 2.3 
May 26th 2020 
 
understand the link between activity level and mood. The second approach will encourage participants 
to engage in social activities within the group, such as crafts, puzzles, and board games and will not 
explicitly highlight the link between activity level and mood. Participants will be randomised to either 
the BA training group, the social group, or to a group of waitlisted individuals. This allows us to create 
a ‘treatment as usual’ control for the relative efficacy of both groups by repeating the outcome 
measures before and after this ‘waitlist’ period, before these participants take up their group places. 
 
Study Title 
Mood, Activity Participation, and Leisure Engagement 
Satisfaction (MAPLES): A Pilot Feasibility Study for Low 
Mood in Acquired Brain Injury. 
Internal ref. no. (or short title) 
MAPLES Pilot Study for Low Mood in ABI 
Study Design 
Randomised Controlled Trial 
Study Participants 
Individuals with an Acquired Brain Injury 
Research Question/Aim(s) 
 
The primary objective of the MAPLES study is to determine 
the feasibility of two Behavioural Activation group 
interventions in individuals with an acquired brain injury (ABI) 
with low mood delivered both in person and online. This will 
be based on participant retention from baseline to 1-month 
post-intervention, acceptability of the proposed activities in 
the group sessions and assessments, and participant 
feedback from the exit interview. 
 
A secondary objective of the MAPLES study is to evaluate 
whether implicitly or explicitly encouraging engagement in 
meaningful and potentially pleasurable activities in adults with 
an acquired brain injury has detectable effects on activity 
level and mood compared to a waitlist control condition. 
 
 
FUNDING AND SUPPORT IN KIND 
FUNDER(S) 
 
FINANCIAL AND NON FINANCIALSUPPORT 
GIVEN 
MRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit – Core 
Funds give to Dr.Tom Manly 
 
 
KEY WORDS: 
Acquired brain injury; traumatic brain injury; depression, 
rehabilitation, executive function 
 

 
MAPLES Pilot Study for Low Mood 
in ABI 
 
viii 
Protocol Version 2.3 
May 26th 2020 
 
STUDY FLOW CHART 
                
 

 
MAPLES Pilot Study for Low Mood 
in ABI 
 
MAPLES RCT Protocol Version 2.3 May 26 2020 
 
1 
 
STUDY PROTOCOL 
Mood, Activity Participation, and Leisure Engagement Satisfaction (MAPLES): A Pilot Feasibility Study 
for Low Mood in Acquired Brain Injury. 
 
BACKGROUND AND RATIONALE 
Acquired brain injury (ABI) refers to damage to the brain from a blow to the head, from an interruption 
to the brain's blood supply (stroke) or oxygen supply (anoxia), or as a result of pressure from a 
growing cancer (Cattelani, Zettin, & Zoccolotti, 2010). In the UK alone, approximately 150,000 people 
will experience a stroke each year and traumatic brain injuries (TBI e.g. from car accidents, falls) alone 
are predicted to be the third largest contributor of disease and disability worldwide by 2020 (World 
Health Organisation, 2006). Taken together, ABI is a leading cause of long-term disability worldwide 
(Roozenbeek, Maas, & Menon, 2013). 
ABIs can have far-reaching negative effects on an individual’s physical, cognitive, behavioural, 
emotional, and social status (Hyder, Wunderlich, Puvanachandra, Gururaj, & Kobusingye, 2007; 
Teasell et al., 2007). The purpose of rehabilitation is to enable those with an ABI successfully 
reintegrate into community by developing essential skills necessary for a patient’s goals (Turner-
Stokes, 2008). However, the continued success of rehabilitation can be significantly reduced by 
depression (Jorge et al., 2004; Medley & Powell, 2010). Roughly 66% of individuals with an ABI and 
depression do not fully recover (Whelan-Goodinson, Ponsford, Johnston, & Grant, 2009). Individuals 
with an ABI and depression are more likely to experience greater difficulties in all other aspects of day-
to-day function (Jorge et al., 2004; Medley & Powell, 2010). Alarmingly, individuals with an ABI are at 
least 3 times as likely to die by suicide compared to the general population (Fazel, Wolf, Pillas, 
Lichtenstein, & Långström, 2014).  
Clearly, there is an urgent need to develop an effective intervention for depression in ABI 
populations. Though existing therapies for depression such as Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) 
have a strong evidence base in the general population, they place heavy demands on skills often 
compromised in ABI, such as comprehension, memory, and mental flexibility. Thus, mixed outcomes 
for CBT in ABI (Waldron, Casserly, & O’Sullivan, 2013) are not surprising. An alternative is 
Behavioural Activation (BA). Individuals with depression have difficulties imagining positive future 
activities, and tend not to plan or engage in them (MacLeod & Byrne, 1996; Morina et al., 2011). This 
limits their experience of events that provide positive reinforcement that maintain a positive mood 
(Kanter et al., 2010). In BA, individuals plan positive events and overcome barriers to their occurrence. 
Despite its simplicity, BA has large effect sizes (Mazzucchelli, Kane, & Rees, 2009) on par with 
medication and CBT (Dimidjian et al., 2006; Richards et al., 2016). BA may therefore help ameliorate 
depression in ABI.  
Here, we will investigate the benefits of BA primarily in people who have sustained traumatic 
brain injuries (TBI) and, for the first time in ABI, examine the efficacy of group rather than individual 
therapy. There are clear economic advantages to group, compared with individual, therapy and, when 
they work well, the supportive dynamics of groups of people with similar challenges can enhance 
therapeutic effects. It might be expected that conventional BA, in which people learn about the 
importance of activity engagement, of scheduling activities in everyday life and of overcoming barriers 
and resisting avoidant behaviour would lead to more generalised and lasting gains than simply 
engaging in rewarding activities without such knowledge and skill acquisition. However, it is also 
possible that cognitive problems (e.g. in remembering details) may undermine these gains. 
Accordingly, we will compare this conventional BA group (“activity planning”) with a second 
intervention group (“activity engagement”) in which participants will be encouraged to engage in 
potentially rewarding activities (crafts, games, social discussion) but which will not emphasise planning 
and scheduling activities outside of the group. Here it is possible that, through positive experiences of 
engagement, participants implicitly or explicitly generalise to increase activity levels in daily life. This 
second intervention also serves to make it clearer, should the “activity planning” be associated with 

 
MAPLES Pilot Study for Low Mood 
in ABI 
 
MAPLES RCT Protocol Version 2.3 May 26 2020 
 
2 
 
greater gains in activity and mood that it is likely attributable to the conventional BA component rather 
than more general group dynamics.  
 
Cognitive impairments in ABI such as inability to override habits in favour of new behaviours 
may pose barriers to BA’s success. Incorporating cognitive training developed specifically for ABI may 
enhance the effectiveness of BA. For example, Goal Management Training (GMT; (Levine et al., 2000, 
2011) is designed to help individuals with ABI overcome habits, generate solutions, and attain goals. 
GMT is well-suited to groups, with participants providing support and feedback to one another, 
alongside “homework” designed to encourage understanding and application of skills (Levine et al., 
2011).  
Hence, reducing the impact of cognitive impairments in ABI may contribute to improvements in 
mood alongside BA. Therefore, the proposed study will investigate the feasibility and acceptability of 
two ABI-specific BA interventions, and whether  one or other intervention is superior in improving 
mood and activity levels and how each compares to participants assessed and re-assessed on the 
outcome measures over the same period but with no intervention other than care as usual (waitlist 
condition)  
 
Objectives 
 
The primary objective of the MAPLES study is to determine the feasibility of two Behavioural 
Activation group interventions in individuals with an acquired brain injury (ABI) with low mood. This will 
be based on participant retention from baseline to 1-month post-intervention, acceptability of the 
proposed skills in the group sessions and assessments, and participant feedback from the exit 
interview. The two behavioural activation groups will be administered both in person and online.  
A secondary objective of the MAPLES study is to evaluate whether training adults with an 
acquired brain injury to plan and engage in meaningful, valued, and/or enjoyable activities has 
detectable effects on activity level and mood compared to a waitlist control condition. 
 
Hypotheses 
There are no specific hypotheses related to the level of acceptability and feasibility of the trial whether 
in person or online. 
 
Study Groups 
1) Activity Planning Group – BA Intervention arm 
2) Activity Engagement Group – the social group 
3) Waitlist Group 
 
HA-1: Relative to participants in the Waitlist Group, participants in the Activity Planning and Activity 
Engagement Groups will have greater increases in activity level from pre- to post-intervention and at 1 
month post-intervention. 
H0-1: There will be no differences in activity level from pre- to post-intervention and at 1 month post-
intervention across all groups. 
 
HA-2: Relative to participants in the Waitlist Group, participants in the Activity Planning and Activity 
Engagement Groups will have greater improvements in mood from pre- to post-intervention and at 1 
month post-intervention. 
H0-2: There will be no differences in mood from pre- to post-intervention and at 1 month post-
intervention across all groups 
 
The COVID-19 pandemic has meant that we have had to suspend all in-person contact with research 
participants. In the current substantial amendment, we are proposing to continue the study using only 
telephone and on-line contact with participants. Whilst this was not part of our original plan, it does 

 
MAPLES Pilot Study for Low Mood 
in ABI 
 
MAPLES RCT Protocol Version 2.3 May 26 2020 
 
3 
 
offer an opportunity to examine the relative feasibility and acceptability of in-person vs. online 
videoconferencing groups. This is useful both during the pandemic, whilst social distancing restrictions 
remain in place, and also afterwards when new means of tele-therapy may have value for patients 
(e.g. those that find it difficult to travel) and services. 
 
STUDY DESIGN and METHODS of DATA COLLECTION AND DATA ANALYIS 
Trial Design 
Activity Planning Group 
Generally, those receiving BA training develop and maintain a schedule based on activities that have 
been enjoyable, pleasant, meaningful, or interesting in the past (Mazzuchelli et al., 2010). Clients are 
then instructed to monitor their daily mood and participation in these activities to identify the 
connection between them. Clients are then taught how to increase the frequency and quality of 
positive events and decrease negative ones (Lewinsohn, 1976; Lewinsohn et al., 1980). In GMT, 
participants learn how to identify precursors to becoming distracted from their goals and strategies to 
orient themselves to their environment in order to prevent goal neglect (Levine et al., 2000, 2011).  
The intervention will consist of weekly 1 hour group sessions over the course of 8 weeks, 
covering 8 overarching themes: 
 
1) Introduction to Group Therapy  
2) Identifying Enjoyable Activities 
3) The Automatic Pilot and Planning Pleasurable Activities 
4) Goal Review and Balancing Enjoyable and Routine Activities 
5) Identifying Solutions to Goal Neglect 
6) Increasing Mastery and Managing Fatigue 
7) Active Approaches to Engagement 
8) Relapse Prevention 
 
All sessions will be administered by Andrea Kusec. Although we have received feedback from 
individuals with an ABI on the content covered within the Activity Planning Group, if participants within 
the MAPLES study react negatively to the content covered within the program then such content will 
be removed from the intervention or restructured so as to not potentially cause distress for future 
participants. 
 
Activity Engagement Group 
Individuals randomised to the Activity Engagement Group will meet weekly for 8 weeks for 1 hour and 
engage in various social activities such as board games, crafting, puzzles, similar to the social group 
in McDonald et al.’s (2008) social arm. Participants in this group will not have specific therapeutic 
goals and outcomes and will only be encouraged within each session to engage in activities within the 
group. The group will follow the below schedule: 
 
1) Board games  
2) Shirt Making 
3) Puzzles 
4) Painting 
5) Trivia Day/”Pub Quiz” 
6) Figurine painting 
7) Origami/papercraft 
8) Clay sculptures 
 

 
MAPLES Pilot Study for Low Mood 
in ABI 
 
MAPLES RCT Protocol Version 2.3 May 26 2020 
 
4 
 
All sessions will be administered by Andrea Kusec. If participants within the Activity Engagement 
group strongly oppose engaging in one of the above sessions (e.g., clay sculptures) that session will 
be replaced with a reasonable substitute (e.g., knitting).  
 
The online versions of the two groups will resemble the in-person groups as closely as possible. 
Participants will be invited to take part using video-conferencing software. Our plan at the outset is to 
use GoToMeeting video-conferencing software because it is easy to use, has a number of good 
security features and does not require participants to sign up for an account. It has also been 
recommended by our co-sponsor, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Trust. We will continue to 
review developments in this area and may switch to an alternative service if there are advantages for 
data security and ease of use. 
 
In line with the nature of the online groups and restrictions imposed by the COVID-19 crisis, the 
following changes will be implemented: The Activity Planning Group will focus on activities that fit with 
current health advice (e.g. that can take place in the home, that do not involve face-to-face contact 
with others, that fit with current outside home/exercise advice). The Activity Engagement group will 
focus on verbal games, quizzes and general conversation rather than crafts. 
 
 
Waitlist Group 
Individuals who are randomised to this arm of the trial will be waitlisted for 8 weeks, and then 
randomised again into either the Activity Planning Group or Activity Engagement Group.  
 
Method 
All participants will complete a baseline assessment, a post-intervention assessment, and a 1-month 
follow-up assessment. Participants in the waitlist group will complete an additional baseline 
assessment prior to being re-randomised into either the Activity Planning Group or the Activity 
Engagement.  
 
Randomisation Procedure 
The MAPLES study will use pre-determined randomisation. Prior to any recruitment, Dr Peter Watson 
(Departmental Statistician) will generate a randomisation sequence known only to him in which the 
condition allocation of each consecutive consenting participant will be listed. These will be placed in 
sealed envelopes showing only the participant number. After conducting a baseline assessment, the 
researcher (Andrea Kusec) will simply open the next envelope in the sequence. In order to maintain 
approximate parity in group size across the duration of the study (e.g. such that participants recruited 
later are not more likely to appear in one or other condition and such that the groups are 
approximately balanced at any point of study termination) randomisation will occur in subblocks of 
varying lengths. The researcher will not know the length of the current block over which randomisation 
has been balanced such that she could guess that, e.g. if the last 3 allocations had been to condition 
A, the next was bound to be B. At the outset of the study, Dr Watson will similarly create randomised 
sequence that will determine to which of the two intervention groups each participant initially 
randomised to the wait-list condition will be allocated after the wait period. Again, these will be 
balanced over variable length subblocks and will be opened in order by the researcher after 
completing the second baseline assessment with Waitlist participants. In this manner, randomisation is 
conducted blind to any information about the participants and cannot influence or be influenced by the 
results of baseline assessments. 
 
 
Baseline and Outcome Measures. 
Demographic information will be collected from participants, including months since injury, type and 
cause of injury (e.g., non-TBI, hypoxia), comorbidities, Glasgow Coma Scale Scores, length of post-

 
MAPLES Pilot Study for Low Mood 
in ABI 
 
MAPLES RCT Protocol Version 2.3 May 26 2020 
 
5 
 
traumatic amnesia, duration of loss of consciousness, and data from initial assessment at 
Cambridgeshire Community Services, including measures of fluid and crystallised intelligence, 
dysexecutive syndrome, and frequency of brain injury symptoms (measured via the European Brain 
Injury Questionnaire). If available, we will additionally collect information on previous diagnosis of 
depression, as well as any psychological treatments received (e.g., Cognitive Behavioural Therapy) 
and any pharmacological treatments for depression. This information will be collected from the 
participant’s medical charts. This information will only be collected if the participant has consented to 
it. If a participant denies access to medical information they will not denied participation in the main 
study. 
Baseline assessment of all below measures will be collected. Participants will be randomized 
into one of three conditions: 1) Activity Planning Group; 2) Activity Engagement Group, or 3) Waitlist. 
 
Primary Outcome Measures 
There is no primary outcome measure to determine its acceptability and feasibility. Determining these 
aspects will be based on 1) the post study questionnaire and qualitative data from the exit interviews; 
2) the face validity of the intervention materials from participants, and 3) retention of participants within 
the trial.  
 
The Behavioural Activation for Depression Scale (BADS) measures activity theorized to underlie 
depression according to BA (Kanter, Mulick, Busch, Berlin, & Martell, 2007, Kanter et al., 2009). 
Overall scores on the BADS will be used to determine the secondary objective of the trial. 
 
 
Additional Measures 
 
The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS; Zigmond & Snaith, 1983) is a widely-used 
measure of depression and anxiety in clinical settings. 
The Behavioural Inhibition/Behavioural Activation Scales (BIS/BAS) measures an individual’s 
disposition toward avoiding and engaging in activities (Carver & White, 1994). 
The Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale-Short-Form (IUS-SF) measures an individual’s degree to 
which they are bothered by uncertainty (Carleton, Norton, & Asmundson, 2007).  
The Impact of Events Scale-Revised (IES-R) measures acute and routine life stress (Weiss, 2007).  
The Brain Injury Rehabilitation Trust Motivation Questionnaire-Self (BMQ-S) measures difficulties 
with overall motivation in ABI (Oddy, Cattran, & Wood, 2008).   
The Motivation for Traumatic Brain Injury Rehabilitation Questionnaire (MOT-Q) measures level 
of motivation for rehabilitation-related activities (Chervinsky et al., 1998) 
The Modified Outcome Measure-Participation Objective, Participation Subjective (MOM-POPS) 
measures an individual’s desired and actual participation in home and community activities (Brown et 
al., 2004). 
The Sense of Control Scale (SCS) measures an individual’s perceived ability to exert control over 
their life (Lachman & Weaver, 1998a, 1998b) 
The Credibility/Expectancy Questionnaire (CEQ) measures participant expectations of treatment 
outcome and perceived credibility of the treatment (Devilly & Borkovec, 2000). This measure will only 
be given at Time 1.  
The Snaith Hamilton Pleasure Scale (SHAPS) measures an individuals’ ability to experience 
pleasure in day-to-day activities (Snaith et al., 1995). 
The Fatigue Severity Scale-7 (FSS; Krupp et al., 1989) measures level of fatigue in patient 
populations.  
The Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9; Kroenke et al., 2001) measures symptoms of 
depression.  
The Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 item Scale (GAD-7; Spitzer et al., 2006) measures symptoms 
of generalised anxiety disorder such as excessive worry and irritability.  

 
MAPLES Pilot Study for Low Mood 
in ABI 
 
MAPLES RCT Protocol Version 2.3 May 26 2020 
 
6 
 
 
Neuropsychological Assessment 
 
The below assessment will be used to characterise the population at baseline.  
 
The Verbal and Spatial Reasoning Test (VESPAR; Langdon & Warrington, 1995) is a fluid 
intelligence assessment for neurological patients.  
Along with the above measures, participants in the Activity Planning Group will be asked to submit a 
copy of their activity schedules in order to conduct exploratory analyses of what type of activities 
individuals with an ABI commonly engage in.  
 
The questionnaire battery described above will be administered at baseline (Time 1), post-intervention 
(Time 2) and 1-month post-intervention (Time 3) either face-to-face, over the phone, via 
videoconferencing, using online questionnaires or via post, as per convenience for the participant. 
Participants who are first randomised to the waitlist condition will complete the questionnaire battery 
again prior to starting in the Activity Planning or Activity Engagement Group.  
 
Feasibility and practicality of Activity Planning vs. Activity Engagement groups, and each in-person vs. 
online, will be assessed in three ways: 1) through examining data on attendance and drop out and the 
occurrence of technical or other barriers (e.g. transport for in-person groups); 2, through a post-study 
questionnaire administered to all participants, and 3) semi-structured exit interviews. Semi-structured 
exit interviews will be conducted by a member of the research team that has not administered the 
intervention or conducted the assessments. Approximately 30% of participants (randomly selected) 
will be invited to take part in the exit interviews. The interview will cover critical aspects of the trial to 
ensure success of a full-scale trial, such as utility of content covered in the treatment, whether 
homework was sufficiently challenging and perceived to be useful, and the impact of the treatment on 
daily life.  
 
After completing participation in the MAPLES study, participants will be given the option for their 
contact details to be retained in order to receive a summary of the study results after the results have 
been published. Additionally, if participants are found not to be eligible OR they have completed their 
participation in the MAPLES study, they will be given the option to have their contact details retained 
in order to be contacted about other research studies that may be of interest to them. 
Analysis 
Quantitative data analysis will be conducted by Andrea Kusec and supervised by senior members of 
the research team and by the trial statistical consultant (Dr. Peter Watson). First, participants who 
completed a group in-person will be separated from those who completed their group online in order to 
compare differences between method of assessment. A general linear model using the BADS across 
the multiple assessments points will be used to determine the effectiveness of the intervention. In line 
with our hypotheses, it is predicted that the Activity Planning Group will show improvements in activity 
level and greater reductions in low mood relative to the Activity Engagement Group and Waitlist group. 
Effect sizes will be estimated based on the trial data. Exploratory analyses investigating the 
relationship of the secondary questionnaires to outcome will be conducted using correlation analyses. 
 
Qualitative data analysis will be conducted using an interpretive description framework, a technique 
developed to identify clinically-relevant strategies in complex health care populations. Themes will be 
coded and organised by Andrea Kusec, using Dedoose qualitative coding software. The interpretation 
and discussion of the themes will be assisted by the service user on the steering committee in order to 
enhance validity. Qualitative themes will be organised by whether a person has received an in person 
or online version of the group. 

 
MAPLES Pilot Study for Low Mood 
in ABI 
 
MAPLES RCT Protocol Version 2.3 May 26 2020 
 
7 
 
STUDY SETTING 
Setting and Participants 
Participants will be recruited through a) Cambridgeshire Community Services (CCS) NHS Trust and 
Cambridge University Hospitals (CUH) NHS Trust in clinics that work with individuals with an ABI; b) 
non-NHS ABI charities such as Headway and the Cambridge Stroke Group and c) our departmental 
volunteer panel with individuals with an ABI the Cambridge Cognitive Neuroscience Research Panel 
(CCNRP). NHS participants will be identified through NHS ABI databases, community ABI databases, 
and based on referral from clinicians. Participants from charity groups will be recruited through flyers 
posted at the charity site or venue, advertisements through charity groups’ social media accounts, or 
collect expressions of interest after giving presentations about the general field of research to these 
groups. Participants recruited from the CCNRP will be contacted in the first instance via email or 
telephone by the research team. 
SAMPLE AND RECRUITMENT 
Eligibility Criteria 
Participants will be deemed eligible to participate based on the below described inclusion and 
exclusion criteria.  
Inclusion criteria  
Participants will be included in the study if they: 
1. Have a diagnosis of acquired brain injury 
2. Are 18 years old or over 
3. Speak and comprehend English 
4. Are a minimum of 3 months post-ABI 
5. Are identified as having low mood. Low mood will be identified by either: 
6a. A score of at least 7 on the depression subscale of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale 
(HADS-D; Zigmond & Snaith, 1983), indicating clinically significant levels of depression, or; 
6b. Clinicians within Cambridgeshire Community Services have identified that a client has low mood 
(i.e., through their own administration of the HADS within the past 3 months of screening date, through 
clinical interview determining that the client has low mood/would benefit emotionally from increased 
activity level) 
7. For the online version of the study, participants must have access to a computer, tablet or suitable 
smartphone, a webcam/microphone, internet connection and be willing to use a video-conferencing 
service. 
 
Exclusion criteria  
Participants will be excluded from the study if they: 
1. Are incapable of attending to and/or understanding the intervention materials (i.e., severe cognitive 
disability) 
2. Have a diagnosis of dementia or other neurodegenerative disorder 
3. Unstable psychotropic medication (i.e., have recently started/have recently changed medications) 
4. Are actively suicidal (i.e., have attempted suicide in the past 3 months, currently self-harm, and/or 
have a concrete plan to attempt suicide in the future, as identified by referring clinician) 
 
Recruitment 
All participants will be referred to the study by the ABI clinical teams within CCS and CUH Trusts, and 
identified through non-NHS ABI charities and the CCNRP.  

 
MAPLES Pilot Study for Low Mood 
in ABI 
 
MAPLES RCT Protocol Version 2.3 May 26 2020 
 
8 
 
Sample identification 
We aim to primarily recruit through CCS NHS Trust and CUH NHS Trust. Our collaborators within 
CCS, Andrew Bateman (Service Manager of CCS), Judith Allanson (Consultant in NeuroRehab and 
Clinical Lead, CUH), Fahim Anwar (Consultant in NeuroRehab), Peter Hutchinson (Consultant 
Neurologist) and Cara Lawrence (Occupational Therapist) will assist in facilitating recruitment from 
NHS ABI services. Participants identified through non-NHS ABI charity organisations such as 
Headway and the Cambridge Stroke Group will either contact the research team directly via posted 
flyers or online advertisements through social media accounts or have the opportunity to express 
interest in participating after a member of the research team has given a short presentation at the 
charity venues. Participants identified through the CCNRP will initially be contacted via email or 
telephone.  
 
Participants identified through NHS ABI services 
 
The clinical staff within NHS ABI services will first identify participants from their NHS ABI 
records of clients currently or previously associated with the service. Upon identification of potentially 
suitable clients, the clinical staff will either 1) provide an invitation letter to a client with an ABI in 
person that are likely to meet eligibility criteria about the study or 2) send invitation letters to those 
identified within their ABI database that are likely to meet eligibility criteria. The invitation letter will 
provide a brief overview of the study and its procedures and contact details of the research team 
should they have additional questions. If the client is interested, the client will be given the option to 
either consent for the research team to approach them (via phone call, SMS, email, mail, or in person 
meeting) and thus consent for the clinician to pass on their contact information to the research team. 
Although clients can take as much time as needed to decide whether to participate or not, clinicians 
will follow up with clients up to a maximum of two additional times on top of initial contact if they have 
not heard from the client within 2 weeks. Once in contact with the research team, an appointment will 
then be made to take written informed consent and schedule a baseline assessment. No potential 
participants will be contacted by the research team unless they have given consent to a member of 
the clinical team in CCS. 
Clinicians within the NHS will be responsible for the initial contact with clients and reviewing 
their medical information with respect to the inclusion/exclusion criteria. No personal information will 
pass to the research team until a potential participant makes contact with the researchers or, with the 
participant’s consent, the clinical team pass contact details to the research team. Alongside contact 
information, the research team will ask eligible participants for consent to access their NHS medical 
records for details of the nature of their injury such as injury type, and location within the brain. Access 
to medical records will be part of the clinician consent process (in brief) as well as part of the consent 
process with the research team. Access to medical records is necessary to describe the demographic 
represented in our sample, as well as to determine whether injury-related variables (e.g., frontal vs 
non-frontal lobe injuries) affect outcome in the trial. Participants who refuse to give access to their 
medical records to the research team will still be welcome to participate.  
 
Participants identified through non-NHS ABI charities 
 
A member of the research team will send out flyers to ABI charity groups so that potential participants 
can contact members of the research team. These flyers can be posted at the physical venue, online 
through charity group social media accounts, or handed out by staff members. Additionally, the 
Invitation Letter can be emailed directly to charity group members with a direct link to consent to being 
contacted. The non-NHS invitation letter will be created through both Qualtrics (local University server) 
and JATOS, an internal online server only accessible by the MRC CBU. Upon entering their contact 
details, the MAPLES research team will receive a notification that someone has consented to be 
contacted and thus will be followed up by the MAPLES research team. Participants recruited through 
this manner will be have the opportunity to ask further questions prior to being screened and reminded 

 
MAPLES Pilot Study for Low Mood 
in ABI 
 
MAPLES RCT Protocol Version 2.3 May 26 2020 
 
9 
 
that they are free to withdraw consent at any time and have their responses deleted from local 
University servers. Those who contact the research team directly (i.e, do not fill out an online Invitation 
Letter) will have the opportunity to ask questions and have a copy of the Invitation Letter emailed or 
posted to them. Participants will then be screened for eligibility-based on the above criteria, after 
which, if relevant, a baseline assessment will be scheduled.  
Occasionally, a member of the research team will visit the ABI charity venue and give a brief 
presentation about the MAPLES study and collect expressions of interest. Copies of the Invitation 
Letter will be handed out. Once we have gained an expression of interest we will go through the study 
requirements and timeline in further detail, after which a potential participant can consent to be 
contacted to go through the eligibility criteria or participants can be screened for eligibility at the ABI 
charity venue. Potential participants will have the opportunity to take away a copy of the Invitation 
Letter as well as copies of the Participant Information Sheet and directly contact the research team at 
a later date.  
 
Participants identified through the MRC CBU CCNRP 
 
The CCNRP is a group of volunteers with a medical history of an ABI who have agreed to be 
contacted for research studies at the MRC CBU. The CCNRP has its own NRES ethical approval. 
Hence, instead of issuing an invitation letter, potential participants will be phoned and invited to take 
part in the MAPLES study. The initial phone call will outline the research project in the same level of 
detail as per the Invitation Letter. If interested, the researcher will offer to email or post the Invitation 
Letter. Following this, participants will be screened for eligibility to participate in the study based on the 
above specified eligibility criteria. If eligible, they will be invited to attend a baseline assessment, 
whereby a member of the research team and the participant will go through the participant information 
sheet and obtain written consent.  
 
If any participant recruited from any of the above sources is eligible and interested but does not follow 
up on consent to be contacted and/or appointment times for the baseline assessments, the research 
team will follow up an additional two times. We feel that this is important for inclusivity because 
individuals with an ABI may experience difficulties with memory and organisation that makes it difficult 
to respond despite their best intentions. Two follow up contacts is an appropriate balance between 
being inclusive and being overly intrusive.  
 
As a thank you for their time and effort in being part of the study, all participants will be given £50 at 
the end of study completion and travel reimbursement will be provided for those attending in person.  
 
Consent 
For participants referred through NHS ABI services, the clinical staff will be responsible for obtaining 
consent to either pass on their contact details to the research team or signpost the interested and eligible 
participant to the research team via a letter of invitation. By extension, the clinical staff will be responsible 
for determining assessment of capacity to consent in the first instance. Although in order to be eligible to 
participate, potential participants must be able to have the capacity to consent, an individual’s ability to 
provide consent will be re-evaluated by a member of the research team by requesting the potential 
participant summarise what the study comprises and what the requirements are. Any participants 
recruited through non-NHS ABI charities and the CCNRP will be evaluated for capacity to consent by a 
member of the research team. 
A member of the research team will then be responsible for communicating in detail the purpose of the 
study, the study requirements, and the time commitment. Importantly, it will be emphasized that 
participants have the right to withdraw at any time in the trial. The consent form will be read through and 
discussed in detail and questions addressed prior to obtaining written evidence of consent, signed by the 
participant and researcher.  

 
MAPLES Pilot Study for Low Mood 
in ABI 
 
MAPLES RCT Protocol Version 2.3 May 26 2020 
 
10 
 
To facilitate recruitment from social media and other sources, there will be a link to information about the 
study on the CBU’s secure server. This will also allow participants to indicate consent to be contacted by 
the research team and to provide an email address and other contact details for this purpose. This 
information will be stored in the CBU’s computer ‘safe haven’ (that has particular protection from the 
internet). The potential participant will then be contacted by a researcher who will send a copy of the 
information sheet and go through it with the participant via GoToMeeting. Participants completing consent 
remotely will instead check off boxes indicating consent using a form hosted on the CBU’s secure server 
and providing their full name and date. Participants can additionally opt to send their consent via email to 
the study lead (Andrea Kusec) indicating agreement to the points outlined in the consent form. 
Participants will be encouraged to take their time reflecting on their decision to participate. At all stages in 
this process, the comprehension and communication needs of each individual participant will be 
considered, in order to support the individual's ability to make an independent decision. 
ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS 
Assessment and management of risk 
There is a risk that participants will become distressed by discussion that focuses attention in 
mood and engagement, will be distressed by others’ shared experiences. These are always issues in 
therapeutic groups that are run in many NHS and other settings. Our view is that the potential benefits 
of the groups outweigh these risks that are mitigated to the greatest extent possible by sensitive group 
coordination, establishing an agreed set of rules with group members (e.g. about confidentiality) and 
having an agreed set of procedures for coping with distress. In this respect, for in-person and online 
groups, other members of the research team will be aware of when the groups are taking place and be 
available nearby or have a link to join an online group. Whilst it is generally better to manage distress 
in the group by giving the participant ‘a moment’ and agreeing to come back to an issue at the end of 
a group, if it is not possible, this proximity allows the person leading the group to get help such that the 
group can continue whilst a person remains ‘with’ the distressed individual (until the acute distress 
passes or other arrangements can be made). The PI on this study is a qualified clinical psychologist 
and the other project members have considerable experience of working with clinical groups.  
The risk of a breach of confidentiality is managed by the research being conducted in 
accordance with best practice. Personally identifiable information (“PID” - names, addresses, dates of 
birth etc.) are kept strictly separate from fully anonymised research data (questionnaires, session 
recordings). PID are held in a secure ‘haven’ on our computer server and/or locked filing cabinets and 
will be retained for only 12 months after the last participant has completed the study (in case of a need 
to re-contact), after which they will be deleted. Online questionnaires will not have personally 
identifiable details such as the participant’s name and will be collected using Qualtrics, hosted on a 
secure University of Cambridge-based server. All information will be transferred to the MRC CBU local 
server as soon as practically possible and then deleted from Qualtrics. Any participant uncomfortable 
with online assessments will have the option to complete the assessments over the phone or through 
posted questionnaires.  
Another risk common to all therapeutic groups concerns breaches of confidentiality by other 
group members. We manage this by making it clear from the Participant Information Sheet onwards 
(repeated at the beginning of each group) that the participants have a responsibility to each other 
including confidentiality. We are explicit in asking participants not to talk about other group members 
outside of the group and taking no photographs or recordings. The online groups carry additional risks 
of service interception and from other people potentially being present in a participant’s home and 
accidentally or intentionally seeing who is in the group or hearing what they are saying. Our 
understanding is that, if appropriate safeguards are taken (password protecting meetings, using 
‘waiting rooms’, ‘locking the meeting,’ only allowing the host to have screensharing and ‘chat’ rights) 
then the risk of interception is very small. To manage the risk from others in the participants’ homes 
we ask participants in advance and at the beginning of each meeting to  
 
ensure that their location is as private as possible 
 
discuss the importance of privacy with others who may share the home 

 
MAPLES Pilot Study for Low Mood 
in ABI 
 
MAPLES RCT Protocol Version 2.3 May 26 2020 
 
11 
 
 
shield the screen and use headphones as necessary to protect the identity of others 
and prevent overhearing 
 
make it clear to the group leader if another person is present, so that the discussion 
can be moderated or that participant temporarily moved to the ‘waiting room’ to protect 
others’ privacy 
 
never to share a video-conferencing link 
 
At the time of consent, we make participants aware that we have a duty of care that sometimes places 
limits on confidentiality. In in-person groups, for example, in the unlikely event that a group member 
had a medical emergency, we would summon relevant help (e.g. call an ambulance). We would 
clearly do the same thing in an online group. Similarly if participants disclose information that indicates 
a significant risk of harm to themselves or another person we have a responsibility to take necessary 
steps (such as contacting their GP or other services). All incidences such as these will be recorded 
and followed up as appropriate. 
The groups in this trial are being offered in addition to any services normally accessed by 
participants. The study will not therefore deprive participants of other interventions and, potentially, of 
course, offers something beneficial to which they might not otherwise have access. It is possible that 
being offered the prospect of a therapeutic group but then having to wait some weeks before it begins 
would induce distress at the delay that would not otherwise have occurred. Such delays are, of 
course, common in clinical services and would be inevitable given the study’s resources, access to 
rooms, need to recruit certain numbers for a group to begin etc. – it would be very rare to go straight 
from referral/initial assessment straight into such an intervention. We are also at pains to point out to 
potential participants that the reason this is research is because we do not know whether one or other 
intervention is of any benefit and the occurrence of delay is an important aspect of drawing meaningful 
scientific inference. 
Participants who choose to have their contact details retained for receiving a summary of the 
study results and/or details about other research studies will only have their information stored on the 
MRC CBU secure “haven” and paper copies of contact details will be shredded after transferring 
details to the CBU computer server. Upon each contact beyond the MAPLES study, participants will 
have the option to have their contact details permanently deleted from the MRC CBU servers and not 
be contacted again.  
 
Research Ethics Committee (REC) and other Regulatory review & reports 
Prior to any data collection, a favourable opinion will be sought from the Cambridge Central Research 
Ethics Committee (REC). A detailed record will be kept of all correspondence with the REC, and annual 
reports will be submitted as required. Upon completion of the study, the REC will be notified immediately. 
The REC will additionally be notified in the case of premature termination of the trial and in the case of 
adverse events. 
Regulatory Review & Compliance  
Prior to recruitment, Dr. Tom Manly and the research team will ensure that appropriate approvals are in 
place. For any amendment, the research team will in agreement with the sponsor will submit information 
to the appropriate REC following the appropriate timeframe.  
Peer review 
The MAPLES study has been independently externally reviewed by the MRC quinquennial review 
panel as part of the overall research programme directed by Dr. Tom Manly. The MRC quinquennial 
review panel consists of experts within psychology as well as experts outside of psychology that are 
both UK based and international. The trial, as part of the larger research programme, has received 
positive feedback from the MRC based on its overall value and impact.  
Patient & Public Involvement 

 
MAPLES Pilot Study for Low Mood 
in ABI 
 
MAPLES RCT Protocol Version 2.3 May 26 2020 
 
12 
 
The MAPLES study has and will continue to benefit from the invaluable input of service users. Eleven 
individuals with an acquired brain injury and four caregivers were interviewed about typical barriers 
and facilitators of engagement in day-to-day and enjoyable activities. Interview participants were also 
asked to provide feedback on the content covered within the Activity Planning group and whether they 
found the topics useful. Notable feedback from participants includes 1) the importance of managing 
fatigue and 2) the perceived importance of practising social engagement skills. The Activity Planning 
group now emphasises fatigue management in relation to planning and engaging in activities, as well 
as roleplay to practice skills related to engaging and communicating with others. The current content 
in the Activity Planning group has also been modified to remove discussion around self-rewards (e.g., 
a cup of tea for every increase in activity) and generating alternative solutions (i.e., back up plans for 
activities). Participants felt that self-rewards and generating alternative solutions for all activities would 
be unmanageable in the long-term and thus could affect long-term outcome in the MAPLES study. 
The results from these interviews have been essential in ensuring that the proposed treatment has 
face validity with individuals with an ABI and their caregivers. 
 
Secondly, the MAPLES study steering committee will include a service user of CCS. We have 
consulted with an occupational therapist based within CCS to recommend a suitable service user to 
be part of the steering committee. Along with their insight into how to enhance acceptability of the trial 
(i.e., ways to prevent attrition), they will be involved in the dissemination of the research. The service 
user on our steering committee will be of great aid in helping ensure our research is accessible to 
clients with an ABI.  
 
Continual patient and public involvement is not only important in trial management but from those 
participating in the research as well. The MAPLES study will therefore benefit from conducting exit 
interviews will all participants in order to enhance acceptability of a future full scale trial. 
 
Protocol compliance  
Protocol compliance will be managed primarily by review of recruitment strategies, intervention 
delivery, and assessment administration during the steering committee meetings. Members of our 
steering committee and NHS staff involved in recruitment will be able to provide feedback on method 
of recruitment. Regular review of documentation of evidence of eligibility will be conducted by a 
member of the MRC CBU research team not conducting the screening process nor conducting the 
intervention.  
 
All group sessions will be audio-recorded in order to code the sessions for intervention fidelity. 
This will help ensure protocol compliance. Assessment session compliance (i.e., completing the full 
questionnaire battery) will be done by using a checklist and comment section to input any information 
as to why an assessment was completed only in part (i.e., severe participant fatigue).  
 
Any protocol deviations, whether accidental or intentional, will be documented and reported to 
the Chief Investigator and Sponsor immediately. Immediate action will be taken to resolve non-
compliance.  
Data protection and patient confidentiality  
Paperwork and files relating to study participants will be stored in locked filing cabinets at the MRC 
Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit, only accessible by the research team. Personally identifiable data 
and anonymised data will be stored separately in order to decrease the risk of breaches to 
confidentiality. Only the research team will have access to personal information (contact details) for 
the purposes of contacting participants. The research team will only access medical records once for 
the purposes of collecting injury-related information. Medical information will not be stored with 
participant contact information and will only be linked to anonymised participant indicators. The 

 
MAPLES Pilot Study for Low Mood 
in ABI 
 
MAPLES RCT Protocol Version 2.3 May 26 2020 
 
13 
 
research data (questionnaires, administered in person, by post, or online) will only contain 
anonymised participant indicators.  
The first type of information transferring between NHS records and the research team will be contact 
details for participants who have expressed an interest in potentially taking part/hearing more about 
the study (i.e. who have consented for the NHS clinician to pass this information on). This will typically 
be conveyed to the research team in a phone call. We will ask clinicians not to use email and delete 
any such email (after writing down the details) should it be sent. On receiving the phone call the 
researcher will write down the details and keep them in a locked filing cabinet at the CBU – a secured 
building with strict guidelines on visitors arriving via reception and being accompanied in movements 
around the building. The researcher will also make an electronic record which will be retained only in 
space within the CBU’s secure computing area to which the MAPLES research team have access. If 
contact details are given to the researcher in person whilst at an NHS site, these will be listed on a 
separate piece of paper (i.e. not in a note book or diary) or recorded on an encrypted laptop and 
returned to the CBU as soon as is possible. Here they will be locked in the filing cabinet/transferred to 
the secure computing area and then deleted from the laptop. 
 
For participants recruited from non-NHS ABI charities, participant contact details will only be retained 
for the purposes of the research study once they have agreed to it via the Invitation Letter or by 
sending an email confirming that they agree for their contact details to be retained. Participants 
recruited through the CCNRP will be re-reminded that their contact details and information are 
currently retained by the CBU and will be given the opportunity for their details to be removed from the 
participant panel. Other than this small difference in accessing contact information, the same data 
storage and protection and policy will be the same as described above for all participants. 
If participants do not consent to take part or withdraw from the study, paper and electronic contact 
details will be immediately deleted from our records.  
Once consent is given we will allocate a unique participant number to an individual. There will be an 
electronic and paper version of the key linking names with participant numbers. Only the participant 
number and never the name or date of birth etc. will be used on all other documents and electronic 
records (questionnaires, tests, clinical information etc.) in the study. 
The researcher will have a copy of the key on an encrypted, strong password protected USB drive 
during her visits to NHS sites, non-NHS ABI charities,  or participants’ homes so that she can, by 
opening it in a laptop, allocate the correct number to any documents (test scoresheets, questionnaires 
etc.). The encrypted USB drive will have no information other than the key (i.e. that might give context 
to what the key was) and no external labels linking it to the study. The key will never be copied to the 
laptop. Any electronic information relating to participants will be stored on the encrypted laptop, that, 
during transit, will be carried separately from the encrypted USB drive. Similarly, any questionnaires, 
scoresheets etc. carried from NHS sites or homes back to the CBU will have only a participant 
number. If there is consent for the researcher to view medical records, she will make written electronic 
notes of details pertinent to characterising a participant’s neurological impairment. No scans or 
photocopies of medical notes will be made and only the participant number will be used to identify the 
electronic record. No details that could uniquely identify an individual (e.g. unusual occupation) will be 
recorded. Clinical notes would never be removed from the NHS site. 
On returning to the CBU, all such anonymous electronic records will be transferred from the laptop to 
the CBU servers and then deleted from the laptop. Anonymous paper records will be electronically 
scanned with the files being stored on CBU servers in addition to the paper records being retained in a 
locked filing cabinet for the duration of the study (in the long term only electronic versions will be 
stored). The USB key will be kept in the locked filing cabinet between NHS/home visits. 

 
MAPLES Pilot Study for Low Mood 
in ABI 
 
MAPLES RCT Protocol Version 2.3 May 26 2020 
 
14 
 
In the above manner, if the encrypted USB drive was lost or stolen it is extremely unlikely that 
the strong password could be guessed. Even if it was, the only information available would be a list of 
names and numbers which would have little meaning outside of the study context. Similarly, if the 
laptop was stolen and the encryption bypassed, or paper records lost or stolen, there would only be 
clinical details, questionnaire scores etc. that could not be linked to any individual.The data will be 
analysed at the MRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit. Analysis will primarily be conducted by 
Andrea Kusec with input from Dr. Tom Manly, Dr. Fionnuala Murphy, Dr. Polly Peers, and Dr. Peter 
Watson, the statistician at the MRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit. All data that is analysed will be 
fully anonymised and will be stored in an encrypted computer. 
Only anonymised data will be kept in the long-term, stored locally within the MRC Cognition 
and Brain Sciences Unit. The MRC recommends that trial data is stored for at least 20 years post-
completion of the trial. However, there is increasing emphasis on making fully anonymised data ‘open’ 
for scientific review and such that other research questions could be addressed by researchers around 
the world – indeed it is now a condition of publication in some journals. When data are made open, in 
principle they are preserved indefinitely. Hence, the data will be stored as open access files online 
indefinitely. Dr. Tom Manly will serve as the data custodian.  
 
Access to the final study dataset 
Only Dr. Tom Manly and Andrea Kusec will have access to any dataset that has personally identifiable 
information, although at 12 months post-trial completion all personally identifiable information will be 
permanently deleted. Prior to uploading the fully anonymised final dataset as described above, only 
members of the research team will have access to the full dataset. In the participant information sheet, 
it is explained that data may be reanalysed for a separate analysis or as part of a larger study. 
 
REFERENCES 
Brown, M., Dijkers, M.P.J.M., Gordon, W.A., Ashman, T., Charatz, H., & Cheng, Z. (2004). Participation 
Objective, Participation Subjective: A measure of participation combining outsider and insider 
perspectives. Journal of Head Trauma Reahbilitation, 19, 451 – 481.   
Carleton, R. N., Norton, M. A. P. J., & Asmundson, G. J. G. (2007). Fearing the unknown: A short 
version of the Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 21(1), 105–117. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2006.03.014 
Carver, C. S., & White, T. L. (1994). Behavioral inhibition, behavioral activation, and affective 
responses to impending reward and punishment: The BIS/BAS scales. Journal of Personality and 
Social Psychology, 67, 319–333. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.2.319 
Cattelani, R., Zettin, M., & Zoccolotti, P. (2010). Rehabilitation treatments for adults with behavioral 
and psychosocial disorders following acquired brain injury : A systematic review. 
Neuropsychology Review, 20(1), 52–85. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11065-009-9125-y 
Dimidjian, S., Hollon, S. D., Dobson, K. S., Schmaling, K. B., Kohlenberg, R. J., Addis, M. E., … 
Jacobson, N. S. (2006). Randomized trial of behavioral activation, cognitive therapy, and 
antidepressant medication in the acute treatment of adults with major depression. Journal of 
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 74(4), 658–670. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.74.4.658 
Fazel, S., Wolf, A., Pillas, D., Lichtenstein, P., & Långström, N. (2014). Suicide, fatal injuries, and 
other causes of premature mortality in patients with traumatic brain injury. JAMA Psychiatry, 
71(3), 326. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2013.3935 
Hyder, A. A., Wunderlich, C. A., Puvanachandra, P., Gururaj, G., & Kobusingye, O. C. (2007). The 
impact of traumatic brain injuries : A global perspective. NeuroRehabilitation, 22, 341–353. 
Jorge, R. E., Robinson, R. G., Moser, D., Tateno, A., Crespo-Facorro, B., & Arndt, S. (2004). Major 
depression following traumatic brain injury. Archives of General Psychiatry, 61(61), 42–50. 
Kanter, J. W., Manos, R. C., Bowe, W. M., Baruch, D. E., Busch, A. M., & Rusch, L. C. (2010). What is 
behavioral activation? A review of the empirical literature. Clinical Psychology Review, 30(6), 

 
MAPLES Pilot Study for Low Mood 
in ABI 
 
MAPLES RCT Protocol Version 2.3 May 26 2020 
 
15 
 
608–620. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2010.04.001 
Kanter, J. W., Mulick, P. S., Busch, A. M., Berlin, K. S., & Martell, C. R. (2007). The Behavioral 
Activation for Depression Scale (BADS): Psychometric properties and factor structure. Journal of 
Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 29(3), 191–202. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-
006-9038-5 
Lachman, M.E., & Weaver, S.L. (1998a). Sociodemographic variations in the sense of control by 
domain: Findings from the MacArthur studies of midlife. Psychology and Aging, 13, 553 - 562.  
Lachman, M.E., & Weaver, S.L. (1998b). The sense of control as a moderator of social class  
 
differences in health and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74,  
763 - 773.  
Levine, B., Robertson, I. A. N. H., Clare, L., Carter, G., Hong, J., Wilson, B. A., … Stuss, D. T. (2000). 
Rehabilitation of executive functioning : An experimental – clinical validation of Goal Management 
Training. Journal of the Internation, 6, 299–312. 
Levine, B., Schweizer, T. A., O’Connor, C., Turner, G., Gillingham, S., Stuss, D. T., … Robertson, I. H. 
(2011). Rehabilitation of executive functioning in patients with frontal lobe brain damage with goal 
management training. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 5(9), 1–9. 
https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2011.00009 
Mazzucchelli, T., Kane, R., & Rees, C. S. (2009). Behavioral activation treatments for depression in 
adults: A meta-analysis and review. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 16(4), 383–411. 
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2850.2009.01178.x 
McDonald, S., Tate, R., Togher, L., Bornhofen, C., Long, E., Gertler, P., & Bowen, R. (2008). Social 
skills treatment for people with severe, chronic acquired brain injuries: A multicenter trial. 
Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 89, 1648–1659. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2008.02.029 
Medley, A. R., & Powell, T. (2010). Motivational interviewing to promote self-awareness and 
engagement in rehabilitation following acquired brain injury: A conceptual review. 
Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 20(4), 481–508. https://doi.org/10.1080/09602010903529610 
Oddy, M., Cattran, C., & Wood, R. (2008). The development of a measure of motivational changes 
following acquired brain injury. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 30(5), 
568–575. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803390701555598 
Richards, D. A., Ekers, D., McMillan, D., Taylor, R. S., Byford, S., Warren, F. C., … Finning, K. (2016). 
Cost and Outcome of Behavioural Activation versus Cognitive Behavioural Therapy for 
Depression (COBRA): A randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial. The Lancet, 388(10047), 
871–880. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31140-0 
Roozenbeek, B., Maas, A. I. R., & Menon, D. K. (2013). Changing patterns in the epidemiology of 
traumatic brain injury. Nature Reviews Neurology, 9(4), 231–236. 
https://doi.org/10.1038/nrneurol.2013.22 
Snaith, R.P., Hamilton, M., Morley, S., Humayan, D., Hargreaves, D., & Trigwell, P. (1995). A scale for 
the assessment of hedonic tone: The Snaith-Hamilton Pleasure Scale. British Journal of 
Psychiatry, 167, 99 - 103.  
Teasell, R., Bayona, N., Marshall, S., Cullen, N., Bayley, M. T., Chundamala, J., … Tu, L. (2007). A 
systematic review of the rehabilitation of moderate to severe acquired brain injuries. Brain Injury, 
21(February), 107–112. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699050701201524 
Turner-Stokes, L. (2008). Evidence for the effectiveness of multi-disciplinary rehabilitation following 
acquired brain injury: A synthesis of two systematic approaches. Journal of Rehabilitation 
Medicine, 40(1), 691–701. https://doi.org/10.2340/16501977-0265 
Waldron, B., Casserly, L. M., & O’Sullivan, C. (2013). Cognitive behavioural therapy for depression 
and anxiety in adults with acquired brain injury: What works for whom? Neuropsychological 
Rehabilitation, 23(1), 64–101. https://doi.org/10.1080/09602011.2012.724196 
Whelan-Goodinson, R., Ponsford, J., Johnston, L., & Grant, F. (2009). Psychiatric disorders following 
traumatic brain injury: Their nature and frequency, 24(5), 324–332. 
World Health Organization. (2006). World health statistics 2006. Paris, France. 

 
MAPLES Pilot Study for Low Mood 
in ABI 
 
MAPLES RCT Protocol Version 2.3 May 26 2020 
 
16 
 
Zigmond, A. S., & Snaith, R. P. (1983). The hospital anxiety and depression scale. Acta Psychiatrica  
 
Scandinavica, 67, 361–370. http://dx.doi .org/10.1111/j.1600-0447.1983.tb09716.x