Post-Inpatient Brain Injury Rehabilitation Outcomes: Report from the National OutcomeInfo Database

This study examined outcomes for intensive residential and outpatient/community-based post-inpatient brain injury rehabilitation (PBIR) programs compared with supported living programs. The goal of supported living programs was stable functioning (no change). Data were obtained for a large cohort of adults with acquired brain injury (ABI) from the OutcomeInfo national database, a web-based database system developed through National Institutes of Health (NIH) Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) funding for monitoring progress and outcomes in PBIR programs primarily with the Mayo-Portland Adaptability Inventory (MPAI-4). Rasch-derived MPAI-4 measures for cases from 2008 to 2014 from 9 provider organizations offering programs in 23 facilities throughout the United States were examined. Controlling for age at injury, time in program, and time since injury on admission (chronicity), both intensive residential (n = 205) and outpatient/community-based (n = 2781) programs resulted in significant (approximately 1 standard deviation [SD]) functional improvement on the MPAI-4 Total Score compared with supported living (n = 101) programs (F = 18.184, p 1 year post-injury) showed significant, but smaller (approximately 0.5 SD) change on the MPAI-4 relative to supported living programs (F = 17.562, p < 0.001). Results indicate that intensive residential and outpatient/community-based PIBR programs result in substantial positive functional changes moderated by chronicity

Minimal Clinically Important Difference for the Rasch Neuropsychiatric Inventory Irritability and Aggression Scale for Traumatic Brain Injury

Objective To determine the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for a Rasch measure derived from the Irritability/Lability and Agitation/Aggression subscales of the Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI)—the Rasch NPI Irritability and Aggression Scale for Traumatic Brain Injury (NPI-TBI-IA). Design Distribution-based statistical methods were applied to retrospective data to determine candidates for the MCID. These candidates were evaluated by anchoring the NPI-TBI-IA to Global Impression of Change (GIC) ratings by participants, significant others, and a supervising physician. Setting Postacute rehabilitation outpatient clinic. Participants 274 cases with observer ratings; 232 cases with self-ratings by participants with moderate-severe TBI at least 6 months postinjury. Interventions Not applicable. Main Outcome Measure NPI-TBI-IA. Results For observer ratings on the NPI-TBI-IA, anchored comparisons found an improvement of 0.5 SD was associated with at least minimal general improvement on GIC by a significant majority (69%–80%); 0.5 SD improvement on participant NPI-TBI-IA self-ratings was also associated with at least minimal improvement on the GIC by a substantial majority (77%–83%). The percentage indicating significant global improvement did not increase markedly on most ratings at higher levels of improvement on the NPI-TBI-IA. Conclusions A 0.5 SD improvement on the NPI-TBI-IA indicates the MCID for both observer and participant ratings on this measure

Brain Rehabilitation, Advanced Imaging, and Neuroscience (BRAIN): An IUPUI Signature Center Initiative (SCI)

poster abstractAbstract The Mission of the Indiana Center for Brain Rehabilitation, Advanced Imaging, and Neuroscience (ICBRAIN) is: to develop and disseminate techniques and methodologies for combining advanced neuroimaging, neurogenetics and other neurophysiological measures with precision behavioral measurement to evaluate novel rehabilitation interventions for people with acquired brain injury. Traumatic and other types of acquired brain injury (ABI) affect millions of U.S. citizens each year, many of whom experience persistent disabilities. Over the past decade there has been a notable rise in research activities to address serious gaps in the knowledge base of ABI, including neuroimaging, outcome measurement, and intervention studies to change function. However, brain injury researchers have not yet established solid links between these research agendas. The BRAIN SCI fills this gap in neuroscience by bringing together an interdisciplinary team of clinical researchers to (1) advance basic science and clinical knowledge to the next level of integration, (2) translate the knowledge gained into clinical care for improved patient outcomes, and (3) use the newly integrated knowledge to drive the leading edge of translational research. BRAIN research includes the Indiana Traumatic Brain Injury Model System, funded by the National Institute for Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR), the InterFACE Center for the study of emotions and interpersonal interactions after neurologic injury, and 12 externally funded research projects. BRAIN research ranges from development of a neurogenetic respository and advanced neuroimaging studies to determine critical elements in recovery from brain injury to intervention studies to improve recovery to a multi-national study of an intervention for phantom limb pain. BRAIN research is transdisciplinary. Disciplines currently involved in BRAIN research include physiatry, neuropsychology, neuroradiology, rehabilitation science, biomedical engineering, and psychiatry. The Indiana University School of Medicine Neuroscience Center provides a home for BRAIN and supports its interdisciplinary Steering Committee. In addition to partnerships with the Neuroscience Center, the Center for Neuroimaging, and the InterFACE Center, BRAIN collaborates with the Rehabilitation Hospital of Indiana, the Stark Neuroscience Institute, and the School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences. This presentation will describe BRAIN’s mission, vision, values, strategic plan, organization, partnerships, and ongoing research projects in greater detail

Mapping the Mayo-Portland adaptability inventory to the international classification of functioning, disability and health

Objective: To examine the contents of the Mayo-Portland Adaptability Inventory (MPAI-4) by mapping it to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). Methods: Each of the 30 scoreable items in the MPAI-4 was mapped to the most precise ICF categories. Results: All 30 items could be mapped to components and categories in the ICF. A total of 88 meaningful concepts were identified. There were, on average, 2.9 meaningful concepts per item, and 65% of all concepts could be mapped. Items in the Ability and Adjustment subscales mapped to categories in both the Body Functions and Activity/Participation components of the ICF, whereas all except 1 in the Participation subscale were to categories in the Activity/Participation component. The items could also be mapped to 34 (13%) of the 258 Environmental Factors in the ICF. Conclusion: This mapping provides better definition through more concrete examples (as listed in the ICF) of the types of body functions, activities, and participation indicators that are represented by the 30 scoreable MPAI-4 items. This may assist users throughout the world in understanding the intent of each item, and support further development and the possibility to report results in the form of an ICF categorical profile, making it universally interpretable

The Minimal Clinically Important Difference for the Mayo-Portland Adaptability Inventory

OBJECTIVES: To determine the Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) and Robust Clinically Important Difference (RCID) of the Mayo-Portland Adaptability Inventory-4 (MPAI-4) as measures of response to intervention. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of existing data. Both distribution- and anchor-based methods were used to triangulate on the MCID and to identify a moderate, that is, more robust, level of change (RCID) for the MPAI-4. These were further evaluated with respect to clinical provider ratings. PARTICIPANTS: Data for individuals with acquired brain injury in rehabilitation programs throughout the United States in the OutcomeInfo Database (n = 3087) with 2 MPAI-4 ratings. MAIN MEASURES: MPAI-4, Supervision Rating Scale, Clinician Rating of Global Clinical Improvement. RESULTS: Initial analyses suggested 5 T-score points (5T) as the MCID and 9T as the RCID. Eighty-one percent to 87% of clinical raters considered a 5T change and 99% considered a 9T change to indicate meaningful improvement. CONCLUSIONS: 5T represents the MCID for the MPAI-4 and 9T, the RCID. Both values are notably less than the Reliable Change Index (RCI). While the RCI indicates change with a high level of statistical confidence, it may be insensitive to change that is considered meaningful by providers and participants as indicated by the MCID

Negative Attribution Bias and Anger After Traumatic Brain Injury

Objectives: Negative attributions pertain to judgments of intent, hostility, and blame regarding others' behaviors. This study compared negative attributions made by people with and without traumatic brain injury (TBI) and examined the degree to which these negative attributions predicted angry ratings in response to situations. Setting: Outpatient rehabilitation hospital. Participants: Forty-six adults with moderate to severe TBI and 49 healthy controls. Design: Cross-sectional study using a quasi-experimental research design. Main Measures: In response to hypothetical scenarios, participants rated how irritated and angry they would be, and how intentional, hostile, and blameworthy they perceived characters' behaviors. There were 3 scenario types differentiated by the portrayal of characters' actions: benign, ambiguous, or hostile. All scenarios theoretically resulted in unpleasant outcomes for participants. Results: Participants with TBI had significantly higher ratings for feeling “irritated” and “angry” and attributions of “intent,” “hostility,” and “blame” compared with healthy controls for all scenario types. Negative attribution ratings accounted for 72.4% and 65.3% of the anger rating variance for participants with and without TBI, respectively. Conclusion: People with TBI may have negative attribution bias, in which they disproportionately judge the intent, hostility, and blameworthiness of others' behaviors. These attributions contributed to their ratings of feeling angry. This suggests that participants with TBI who have anger problems should be evaluated for this bias, and anger treatments should possibly aim to alter negative attributions. However, before implementing clinical practice changes, there is a need for replication with larger samples, and further investigation of the characteristics associated with negative attribution bias

Reductions in Alexithymia and Emotion Dysregulation After Training Emotional Self-Awareness Following Traumatic Brain Injury: A Phase I Trial

OBJECTIVES: To examine the acceptability and initial efficacy of an emotional self-awareness treatment at reducing alexithymia and emotion dysregulation in participants with traumatic brain injury (TBI). SETTING: An outpatient rehabilitation hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Seventeen adults with moderate to severe TBI and alexithymia. Time postinjury ranged 1 to 33 years. DESIGN: Within subject design, with 3 assessment times: baseline, posttest, and 2-month follow-up. INTERVENTION: Eight lessons incorporated psychoeducational information and skill-building exercises teaching emotional vocabulary, labeling, and differentiating self-emotions; interoceptive awareness; and distinguishing emotions from thoughts, actions, and sensations. MEASURES: Toronto Alexithymia Scale-20 (TAS-20); Levels of Emotional Awareness Scale (LEAS); Trait Anxiety Inventory (TAI); Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9); State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory (STAXI); Difficulty With Emotion Regulation Scale (DERS); and Positive and Negative Affect Scale (PANAS). RESULTS: Thirteen participants completed the treatment. Repeated-measures analysis of variance revealed changes on the TAS-20 (P = .003), LEAS (P < .001), TAI (P = .014), STAXI (P = .015), DERS (P = .020), and positive affect (P < .005). Paired t tests indicated significant baseline to posttest improvements on these measures. Gains were maintained at follow-up for the TAS, LEAS, and positive affect. Treatment satisfaction was high. CONCLUSION: This is the first study published on treating alexithymia post-TBI. Positive changes were identified for emotional self-awareness and emotion regulation; some changes were maintained several months posttreatment. Findings justify advancing to the next investigational phase for this novel intervention

The Relations of Self-Reported Aggression to Alexithymia, Depression, and Anxiety After Traumatic Brain Injury

Objectives: To compare self-reported aggression in people with and without traumatic brain injury (TBI) and examine the relations of aggression to alexithymia (poor emotional insight), depression, and anxiety. Setting: Rehabilitation hospital. Participants: Forty-six adults with moderate to severe TBI who were at least 3 months postinjury; 49 healthy controls (HCs); groups were frequency matched for age and gender. Design: Cross-sectional study using a quasi-experimental design. MainMeasures:Aggression (Buss-Perry Aggression Questionnaire); alexithymia (Toronto Alexithymia Scale-20); depression (Patient Health Questionnaire-9); and trait anxiety (State-Trait Anxiety Inventory). Results: Participants with TBI had significantly higher aggression scores than HCs. For participants with TBI, 34.2% of the adjusted variance of aggression was significantly explained by alexithymia, depression, and anxiety; alexithymia accounted for the largest unique portion of the variance in this model (16.2%). Alexithymia, depression, and anxiety explained 46% of the adjusted variance of aggression in HCs; in contrast to participants with TBI, depression was the largest unique contributor to aggression (15.9%). Conclusion: This was the first empirical study showing that poor emotional insight (alexithymia) significantly contributes to aggression after TBI. This relation, and the potential clinical implications it may have for the treatment of aggression, warrants further investigation

Brain Rehabilitation, Advanced Imaging, and Neuroscience (BRAIN): An IUPUI Signature Center Initiative (SCI)

poster abstractThe Mission of the Indiana Center for Brain Rehabilitation, Advanced Imaging, and Neuroscience (ICBRAIN) is: to develop and disseminate techniques and methodologies for combining advanced neuroimaging, neurogenetics and other neurophysiological measures with precision behavioral measurement to evaluate novel rehabilitation interventions for people with acquired brain injury. Traumatic and other types of acquired brain injury (ABI) affect millions of U.S. citizens each year, many of whom experience persistent disabilities. Over the past decade there has been a notable rise in research activities to address serious gaps in the knowledge base of ABI, including neuroimaging, outcome measurement, and intervention studies to change function. However, brain injury researchers have not yet established solid links between these research agendas. The BRAIN SCI fills this gap in neuroscience by bringing together an interdisciplinary team of clinical researchers to (1) advance basic science and clinical knowledge to the next level of integration, (2) translate the knowledge gained directly into clinical care for improved patient outcomes, and (3) use the newly integrated knowledge to drive the leading edge of translational research. BRAIN research includes the Indiana Traumatic Brain Injury Model System, funded by the National Institute for Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR), the InterFACE Center for the study of emotions and interpersonal interactions after neurologic injury, and nine other externally funded research projects. BRAIN research ranges from development of a neurogenetic respository and advanced neuroimaging studies to determine critical elements in recovery from brain injury to intervention studies to improve recovery to a multi-national study of an intervention for phantom limb pain. BRAIN research is interdisciplinary. Disciplines currently involved in BRAIN research include physiatry, neuropsychology, neuroradiology, rehabilitation science, biomedical engineering, and psychiatry. The Indiana School of Medicine Neuroscience Center of Excellence provides a home for BRAIN and supports its interdisciplinary Steering Committee. In addition to partnerships with the Neuroscience Center, the Center for Neuroimaging, and the InterFACE Center, BRAIN collaborates with the Rehabilitation Hospital of Indiana, the Stark Neuroscience Institute, and the School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences. This presentation will describe BRAIN’s mission, vision, organization, partnerships, and ongoing research projects in greater detail

A Standard Method for Determining the Minimal Clinically Important Difference for Rehabilitation Measures

The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) is receiving increasing interest and importance in medical practice and research. The MCID is the smallest improvement in scores in the domain of interest that patients perceive as beneficial. In clinical trials, comparing the proportion of individuals between treatment and control groups who obtain a MCID may be more informative than comparisons of mean change between groups because a statistically significant mean difference does not necessarily represent a difference that is perceived as meaningful by treatment recipients. The MCID may also be useful in advancing personalized medicine by characterizing those who are most likely to benefit from a treatment. In clinical practice, the MCID can be used to identify if a participant is experiencing a meaningful change in status. A variety of methods have been used to determine the MCID with no clear agreement on the most appropriate approach. Two major sets of methods are either (1) distribution-based, that is, referencing the MCID to a measure of variability or effect size in the measure of interest or (2) anchor-based, that is, referencing the MCID to an external assessment of change in the condition, ability, or activity represented by the measure of interest. In prior literature, using multiple methods to “triangulate” on the value of the MCID has been proposed. In this commentary, we describe a systematic approach to triangulate on the MCID using both distribution-based and anchor-based methods. Adaptation of a systematic approach for obtaining the MCID in rehabilitation would facilitate communication and comparison of results among rehabilitation researchers and providers