Psychological Resilience Is Associated With Participation Outcomes Following Mild to Severe Traumatic Brain Injury

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) causes physical and cognitive-behavioral impairments that reduce participation in employment, leisure, and social relationships. Demographic and injury-related factors account for a small proportion of variance in participation post-injury. Personal factors such as resilience may also impact outcomes. This study aimed to examine the association of resilience alongside demographic, injury-related, cognitive, emotional, and family factors with participation following TBI. It was hypothesized that resilience would make an independent contribution to participation outcomes after TBI. Participants included 245 individuals with mild-severe TBI [Mage = 44.41, SDage = 16.09; post traumatic amnesia (PTA) duration M 24.95 days, SD 45.99] who completed the Participation Assessment with Recombined Tools-Objective (PART-O), TBI Quality of Life Resilience scale, Family Assessment Device General Functioning Scale, Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test, National Adult Reading Test, and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale an average 4.63 years post-injury (SD 3.02, R 0.5–13). Multiple regression analyses were used to examine predictors of PART-O scores as the participation measure. Variables in the model accounted for a significant 38% of the variability in participation outcomes, F(13, 211) = 9.93, p < 0.05, R2 = 0.38, adjusted R2 = 0.34. Resilience was a significant predictor of higher participation, along with shorter PTA duration, more years since injury, higher education and IQ, and younger age. Mediation analyses revealed depression mediated the relationship between resilience and participation. As greater resilience may protect against depression and enhance participation this may be a focus of intervention

Predictors of clinical recovery from concussion: a systematic review

Objective: A systematic review of factors that might be associated with, or influence, clinical recovery from sport-related concussion. Clinical recovery was defined functionally as a return to normal activities, including school and sports, following injury. Design: Systematic review. Data sources PubMed, PsycINFO, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, SPORTDiscus, Scopus and Web of Science. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Studies published by June of 2016 that addressed clinical recovery from concussion. Results: A total of 7617 articles were identified using the search strategy, and 101 articles were included. There are major methodological differences across the studies. Many different clinical outcomes were measured, such as symptoms, cognition, balance, return to school and return to sports, although symptom outcomes were the most frequently measured. The most consistent predictor of slower recovery from concussion is the severity of a person’s acute and subacute symptoms. The development of subacute problems with headaches or depression is likely a risk factor for persistent symptoms lasting greater than a month. Those with a preinjury history of mental health problems appear to be at greater risk for having persistent symptoms. Those with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) or learning disabilities do not appear to be at substantially greater risk. There is some evidence that the teenage years, particularly high school, might be the most vulnerable time period for having persistent symptoms—with greater risk for girls than boys. Conclusion: The literature on clinical recovery from sport-related concussion has grown dramatically, is mostly mixed, but some factors have emerged as being related to outcome

Patient Outcomes at Twelve Months after Early Decompressive Craniectomy for Diffuse Traumatic Brain Injury in the Randomized DECRA Clinical Trial

Functional outcomes at 12 months were a secondary outcome of the randomized DECRA trial of early decompressive craniectomy for severe diffuse traumatic brain injury (TBI) and refractory intracranial hypertension. In the DECRA trial, patients were randomly allocated 1:1 to either early decompressive craniectomy or intensive medical therapies (standard care). We conducted planned secondary analyses of the DECRA trial outcomes at 6 and 12 months, including all 155 patients. We measured functional outcome using the Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended (GOS-E). We used ordered logistic regression, and dichotomized the GOS-E using logistic regression, to assess outcomes in patients overall and in survivors. We adjusted analyses for injury severity using the International Mission for Prognosis and Analysis of Clinical Trials in TBI (IMPACT) model. At 12 months, the odds ratio (OR) for worse functional outcomes in the craniectomy group (OR 1.68; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.96-2.93; p = 0.07) was no longer significant. Unfavorable functional outcomes after craniectomy were 11% higher (59% compared with 48%), but were not significantly different from standard care (OR 1.58; 95% CI: 0.84-2.99; p = 0.16). Among survivors after craniectomy, there were fewer good (OR 0.33; 95% CI: 0.12-0.91; p = 0.03) and more vegetative (OR 5.12; 95% CI: 1.04-25.2; p = 0.04) outcomes. Similar outcomes in survivors were found at 6 months after injury. Vegetative (OR 5.85; 95% CI: 1.21-28.30; p = 0.03) and severely disabled outcomes (OR 2.49; 95% CI: 1.21-5.11; p = 0.01) were increased. Twelve months after severe diffuse TBI and early refractory intracranial hypertension, decompressive craniectomy did not improve outcomes and increased vegetative survivors

Care coordination experiences of people with traumatic brain injury and their family members in the 4-years after injury: a qualitative analysis

Title: Care coordination experiences of people with traumatic brain injury and their family members 4-years after injury: A qualitative analysis. Aim: To explore experiences of care coordination in the first 4-years after severe traumatic brain injury (TBI). Methods: A qualitative study nested within a population-based longitudinal cohort study. Eighteen semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted 48-months post-injury with six adults living with severe TBI and the family members of 12 other adults living with severe TBI. Participants were identified through purposive sampling from the Victorian State Trauma Registry. A thematic analysis was undertaken. Results: No person with TBI or their family member reported a case manager or care coordinator were involved in assisting with all aspects of their care. Many people with severe TBI experienced ineffective care coordination resulting in difficulty accessing services, variable quality in the timing, efficiency and appropriateness of services, an absence of regular progress evaluations and collaboratively formulated long-term plans. Some family members attempted to fill gaps in care, often without success. In contrast, effective care coordination was reported by one family member who advocated for services, closely monitored their relative, and effectively facilitated communication between services providers. Conclusion: Given the high cost, complexity and long-term nature of TBI recovery, more effective care coordination is required to consistently meet the needs of people with severe TBI.Sandra Braaf, Shanthi Ameratunga, Nicola Christie, Warwick Teague, Jennie Ponsford, Peter A. Cameron, Belinda J. Gabb

The Glasgow Outcome Scale -- 40 years of application and refinement

The Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS) was first published in 1975 by Bryan Jennett and Michael Bond. With over 4,000 citations to the original paper, it is the most highly cited outcome measure in studies of brain injury and the second most-cited paper in clinical neurosurgery. The original GOS and the subsequently developed extended GOS (GOSE) are recommended by several national bodies as the outcome measure for major trauma and for head injury. The enduring appeal of the GOS is linked to its simplicity, short administration time, reliability and validity, stability, flexibility of administration (face-to-face, over the telephone and by post), cost-free availability and ease of access. These benefits apply to other derivatives of the scale, including the Glasgow Outcome at Discharge Scale (GODS) and the GOS paediatric revision. The GOS was devised to provide an overview of outcome and to focus on social recovery. Since the initial development of the GOS, there has been an increasing focus on the multidimensional nature of outcome after head injury. This Review charts the development of the GOS, its refinement and usage over the past 40 years, and considers its current and future roles in developing an understanding of brain injury

Long-term health status and trajectories of seriously injured patients: A population-based longitudinal study

Improved understanding of the quality of survival of patients is crucial in evaluating trauma care, understanding recovery patterns and timeframes, and informing healthcare, social, and disability service provision. We aimed to describe the longer-term health status of seriously injured patients, identify predictors of outcome, and establish recovery trajectories by population characteristics.A population-based, prospective cohort study using the Victorian State Trauma Registry (VSTR) was undertaken. We followed up 2,757 adult patients, injured between July 2011 and June 2012, through deaths registry linkage and telephone interview at 6-, 12-, 24-, and 36-months postinjury. The 3-level EuroQol 5 dimensions questionnaire (EQ-5D-3L) was collected, and mixed-effects regression modelling was used to identify predictors of outcome, and recovery trajectories, for the EQ-5D-3L items and summary score. Mean (SD) age of participants was 50.8 (21.6) years, and 72% were male. Twelve percent (n = 333) died during their hospital stay, 8.1% (n = 222) of patients died postdischarge, and 155 (7.0%) were known to have survived to 36-months postinjury but were lost to follow-up at all time points. The prevalence of reporting problems at 36-months postinjury was 37% for mobility, 21% for self-care, 47% for usual activities, 50% for pain/discomfort, and 41% for anxiety/depression. Continued improvement to 36-months postinjury was only present for the usual activities item; the adjusted relative risk (ARR) of reporting problems decreased from 6 to 12 (ARR 0.87, 95% CI: 0.83-0.90), 12 to 24 (ARR 0.94, 95% CI: 0.90-0.98), and 24 to 36 months (ARR 0.95, 95% CI: 0.95-0.99). The risk of reporting problems with pain or discomfort increased from 24- to 36-months postinjury (ARR 1.06, 95% CI: 1.01, 1.12). While loss to follow-up was low, there was responder bias with patients injured in intentional events, younger, and less seriously injured patients less likely to participate; therefore, these patient subgroups were underrepresented in the study findings.The prevalence of ongoing problems at 3-years postinjury is high, confirming that serious injury is frequently a chronic disorder. These findings have implications for trauma system design. Investment in interventions to reduce the longer-term impact of injuries is needed, and greater investment in primary prevention is needed

Depression prevalence using the HADS-D compared to SCID major depression classification:An individual participant data meta-analysis

Objectives: Validated diagnostic interviews are required to classify depression status and estimate prevalence of disorder, but screening tools are often used instead. We used individual participant data meta-analysis to compare prevalence based on standard Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale – depression subscale (HADS-D) cutoffs of ≥8 and ≥11 versus Structured Clinical Interview for DSM (SCID) major depression and determined if an alternative HADS-D cutoff could more accurately estimate prevalence. Methods: We searched Medline, Medline In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations via Ovid, PsycINFO, and Web of Science (inception-July 11, 2016) for studies comparing HADS-D scores to SCID major depression status. Pooled prevalence and pooled differences in prevalence for HADS-D cutoffs versus SCID major depression were estimated. Results: 6005 participants (689 SCID major depression cases) from 41 primary studies were included. Pooled prevalence was 24.5% (95% Confidence Interval (CI): 20.5%, 29.0%) for HADS-D ≥8, 10.7% (95% CI: 8.3%, 13.8%) for HADS-D ≥11, and 11.6% (95% CI: 9.2%, 14.6%) for SCID major depression. HADS-D ≥11 was closest to SCID major depression prevalence, but the 95% prediction interval for the difference that could be expected for HADS-D ≥11 versus SCID in a new study was −21.1% to 19.5%. Conclusions: HADS-D ≥8 substantially overestimates depression prevalence. Of all possible cutoff thresholds, HADS-D ≥11 was closest to the SCID, but there was substantial heterogeneity in the difference between HADS-D ≥11 and SCID-based estimates. HADS-D should not be used as a substitute for a validated diagnostic interview.This study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR, KRS-144045 & PCG 155468). Ms. Neupane was supported by a G.R. Caverhill Fellowship from the Faculty of Medicine, McGill University. Drs. Levis and Wu were supported by Fonds de recherche du Québec - Santé (FRQS) Postdoctoral Training Fellowships. Mr. Bhandari was supported by a studentship from the Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre. Ms. Rice was supported by a Vanier Canada Graduate Scholarship. Dr. Patten was supported by a Senior Health Scholar award from Alberta Innovates, Health Solutions. The primary study by Scott et al. was supported by the Cumming School of Medicine and Alberta Health Services through the Calgary Health Trust, and funding from the Hotchkiss Brain Institute. The primary study by Amoozegar et al. was supported by the Alberta Health Services, the University of Calgary Faculty of Medicine, and the Hotchkiss Brain Institute. The primary study by Cheung et al. was supported by the Waikato Clinical School, University of Auckland, the Waikato Medical Research Foundation and the Waikato Respiratory Research Fund. The primary study by Cukor et al. was supported in part by a Promoting Psychological Research and Training on Health-Disparities Issues at Ethnic Minority Serving Institutions Grants (ProDIGs) awarded to Dr. Cukor from the American Psychological Association. The primary study by De Souza et al. was supported by Birmingham and Solihull Mental Health Foundation Trust. The primary study by Honarmand et al. was supported by a grant from the Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada. The primary study by Fischer et al. was supported as part of the RECODEHF study by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (01GY1150). The primary study by Gagnon et al. was supported by the Drummond Foundation and the Department of Psychiatry, University Health Network. The primary study by Akechi et al. was supported in part by a Grant-in-Aid for Cancer Research (11−2) from the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare and a Grant-in-Aid for Young Scientists (B) from the Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. The primary study by Kugaya et al. was supported in part by a Grant-in-Aid for Cancer Research (9–31) and the Second-Term Comprehensive 10-year Strategy for Cancer Control from the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare. The primary study Ryan et al. was supported by the Irish Cancer Society (Grant CRP08GAL). The primary study by Keller et al. was supported by the Medical Faculty of the University of Heidelberg (grant no. 175/2000). The primary study by Love et al. (2004) was supported by the Kathleen Cuningham Foundation (National Breast Cancer Foundation), the Cancer Council of Victoria and the National Health and Medical Research Council. The primary study by Love et al. (2002) was supported by a grant from the Bethlehem Griffiths Research Foundation. The primary study by Löwe et al. was supported by the medical faculty of the University of Heidelberg, Germany (Project 121/2000). The primary study by Navines et al. was supported in part by the Spanish grants from the Fondo de Investigación en Salud, Instituto de Salud Carlos III (EO PI08/90869 and PSIGEN-VHC Study: FIS-E08/00268) and the support of FEDER (one way to make Europe). The primary study by O'Rourke et al. was supported by the Scottish Home and Health Department, Stroke Association, and Medical Research Council. The primary study by Sanchez-Gistau et al. was supported by a grant from the Ministry of Health of Spain (PI040418) and in part by Catalonia Government, DURSI 2009SGR1119. The primary study by Gould et al. was supported by the Transport Accident Commission Grant. The primary study by Rooney et al. was supported by the NHS Lothian Neuro-Oncology Endowment Fund. The primary study by Schwarzbold et al. was supported by PRONEX Program (NENASC Project) and PPSUS Program of Fundaçao de Amparo a esquisa e Inovacao do Estado de Santa Catarina (FAPESC) and the National Science and Technology Institute for Translational Medicine (INCT-TM). The primary study by Simard et al. was supported by IDEA grants from the Canadian Prostate Cancer Research Initiative and the Canadian Breast Cancer Research Alliance, as well as a studentship from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. The primary study by Singer et al. (2009) was supported by a grant from the German Federal Ministry for Education and Research (no. 01ZZ0106). The primary study by Singer et al. (2008) was supported by grants from the German Federal Ministry for Education and Research (# 7DZAIQTX) and of the University of Leipzig (# formel. 1–57). The primary study by Meyer et al. was supported by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF). The primary study by Stone et al. was supported by the Medical Research Council, UK and Chest Heart and Stroke, Scotland. The primary study by Turner et al. was supported by a bequest from Jennie Thomas through Hunter Medical Research Institute. The primary study by Walterfang et al. was supported by Melbourne Health. Drs. Benedetti and Thombs were supported by FRQS researcher salary awards. No other authors reported funding for primary studies or for their work on this study. No funder had any role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication

Psychosis following traumatic brain injury

Psychosis following traumatic brain injury (PFTBI) has received modest empirical investigation, and is subsequently poorly understood, identified and treated. The current article reports on consistencies in PFTBI phenomenology according to the existing peer-reviewed literature. The potential for psychotic symptoms post TBI, aetiological propositions, prevalence, significance of onset latency and injury severity, clinical and cognitive neuropsychological presentation and injury localisation/neuroimaging data are reviewed. Substantial methodological limitations associated with the majority of publications informing this work are also discussed. Despite controversies in the literature, psychosis following TBI appears to be three times more prevalent than psychotic disorders in the general population, and comparable in presentation to other idiopathic psychotic spectrum disorders, including schizophrenia

Comparing performance across in-person and videoconference-based administrations of common neuropsychological measures in community-based survivors of stroke

Objective: Neuropsychological assessment via videoconference could assist in bridging service access gaps due to geographical, mobility, or infection control barriers. We aimed to compare performances on neuropsychological measures across in-person and videoconference-based administrations in community-based survivors of stroke. Method: Participants were recruited through a stroke-specific database and community advertising. Stroke survivors were eligible if they had no upcoming neuropsychological assessment, concurrent neurological and/or major psychiatric diagnoses, and/or sensory, motor, or language impairment that would preclude standardised assessment. Thirteen neuropsychological measures were administered in-person and via videoconference in a randomised crossover design (2-week interval). Videoconference calls were established between two laptop computers, facilitated by Zoom. Repeated-measures t tests, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), and Bland–Altman plots were used to compare performance across conditions. Results: Forty-eight participants (26 men; Mage = 64.6, SD = 10.1; Mtime since stroke = 5.2 years, SD = 4.0) completed both sessions on average 15.8 (SD = 9.7) days apart. For most measures, the participants did not perform systematically better in a particular condition, indicating agreement between administration methods. However, on the Hopkins Verbal Learning Test – Revised, participants performed poorer in the videoconference condition (Total Recall Mdifference = −2.11). ICC estimates ranged from .40 to .96 across measures. Conclusions: This study provides preliminary evidence that in-person and videoconference assessment result in comparable scores for most neuropsychological tests evaluated in mildly impaired community-based survivors of stroke. This preliminary evidence supports teleneuropsychological assessment to address service gaps in stroke rehabilitation; however, further research is needed in more diverse stroke samples