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

Economic evaluation of the NET intervention versus guideline dissemination for management of mild head injury in hospital emergency departments

Abstract Background Evidence-based guidelines for the management of mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) in the emergency department (ED) are now widely available, and yet, clinical practice remains inconsistent with the guidelines. The Neurotrauma Evidence Translation (NET) intervention was developed to increase the uptake of guideline recommendations and improve the management of minor head injury in Australian emergency departments (EDs). However, the adoption of this type of intervention typically entails an upfront investment that may or may not be fully offset by improvements in clinical practice, health outcomes and/or reductions in health service utilisation. The present study estimates the cost and cost-effectiveness of the NET intervention, as compared to the passive dissemination of the guideline, to evaluate whether any improvements in clinical practice or health outcomes due to the NET intervention can be obtained at an acceptable cost. Methods and findings Study setting: The NET cluster randomised controlled trial [ACTRN12612001286831]. Study sample: Seventeen EDs were randomised to the control condition and 14 to the intervention. One thousand nine hundred forty-three patients were included in the analysis of clinical practice outcomes (NET sample). A total of 343 patients from 14 control and 10 intervention EDs participated in follow-up interviews and were included in the analysis of patient-reported health outcomes (NET-Plus sample). Outcome measures: Appropriate post-traumatic amnesia (PTA) screening in the ED (primary outcome). Secondary clinical practice outcomes: provision of written information on discharge (INFO) and safe discharge (defined as CT scan appropriately provided plus PTA plus INFO). Secondary patient-reported, post-discharge health outcomes: anxiety (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale), post-concussive symptoms (Rivermead), and preference-based health-related quality of life (SF6D). Methods: Trial-based economic evaluations from a health sector perspective, with time horizons set to coincide with the final follow-up for the NET sample (2 months post-intervention) and to 1-month post-discharge for the NET-Plus sample. Results: Intervention and control groups were not significantly different in health service utilisation received in the ED/inpatient ward following the initial mTBI presentation (adjusted mean difference $23.86 per patient; 95$106, $153; p = 0.719) or over the longer follow-up in the NET-plus sample (adjusted mean difference$341.78 per patient; 95%CI − $58,$742; p = 0.094). Savings from lower health service utilisation are therefore unlikely to offset the significantly higher upfront cost of the intervention (mean difference $138.20 per patient; 95$135, $141; p < 0.000). Estimates of the net effect of the intervention on total cost (intervention cost net of health service utilisation) suggest that the intervention entails significantly higher costs than the control condition (adjusted mean difference$169.89 per patient; 95%CI $43,$297, p = 0.009). This effect is larger in absolute magnitude over the longer follow-up in the NET-plus sample (adjusted mean difference $505.06; 95$96, $915; p = 0.016), mostly due to additional health service utilisation. For the primary outcome, the NET intervention is more costly and more effective than passive dissemination; entailing an additional cost of$1246 per additional patient appropriately screened for PTA ($169.89/0.1363; Fieller’s 95$525, $2055). For NET to be considered cost-effective with 95% confidence, decision-makers would need to be willing to trade one quality-adjusted life year (QALY) for 25 additional patients appropriately screened for PTA. While these results reflect our best estimate of cost-effectiveness given the data, it is possible that a NET intervention that has been scaled and streamlined ready for wider roll-out may be more or less cost-effective than the NET intervention as delivered in the trial. Conclusions While the NET intervention does improve the management of mTBI in the ED, it also entails a significant increase in cost and—as delivered in the trial—is unlikely to be cost-effective at currently accepted funding thresholds. There may be a scope for a scaled-up and streamlined NET intervention to achieve a better balance between costs and outcomes. Trial registration Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12612001286831, date registered 12 December 2012

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

Combined cognitive and vocational interventions after mild to moderate traumatic brain injury: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background A considerable proportion of patients with mild to moderate traumatic brain injury (TBI) experience long-lasting somatic, cognitive, and emotional symptoms that may hamper their capacity to return to work (RTW). Although several studies have described medical, psychological, and work-related factors that predict RTW after TBI, well-controlled intervention studies regarding RTW are scarce. Furthermore, there has traditionally been weak collaboration among health-related rehabilitation services, the labor and welfare sector, and workplaces. Methods/design This study protocol describes an innovative randomized controlled trial in which we will explore the effect of combining manualized cognitive rehabilitation (Compensatory Cognitive Training [CCT]) and supported employment (SE) on RTW and related outcomes for patients with mild to moderate TBI in real-life competitive work settings. The study will be carried out in the southeastern region of Norway and thereby be performed within the Norwegian welfare system. Patients aged 18–60 years with mild to moderate TBI who are employed in a minimum 50% position at the time of injury and sick-listed 50% or more for postconcussive symptoms 2 months postinjury will be included in the study. A comprehensive assessment of neurocognitive function, self-reported symptoms, emotional distress, coping style, and quality of life will be performed at baseline, immediately after CCT (3 months after inclusion), following the end of SE (6 months after inclusion), and 12 months following study inclusion. The primary outcome measures are the proportion of participants who have returned to work at 12-month follow-up and length of time until RTW, in addition to work stability as well as work productivity over the first year following the intervention. Secondary outcomes include changes in self-reported symptoms, emotional and cognitive function, and quality of life. Additionally, a qualitative RTW process evaluation focused on organizational challenges at the workplace will be performed. Discussion The proposed study will combine cognitive and vocational rehabilitation and explore the efficacy of increased cross-sectoral collaboration between specialized health care services and the labor and welfare system. If the intervention proves effective, the project will describe the cost-effectiveness and utility of the program and thereby provide important information for policy makers. In addition, knowledge about the RTW process for persons with TBI and their workplaces will be provided. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03092713. Registered on 10 March 2017

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

The American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine Diagnostic Criteria for Mild Traumatic Brain Injury

Objective: To develop new diagnostic criteria for mild traumatic brain injury (TBI) that are appropriate for use across the lifespan and in sports, civilian trauma, and military settings. Design: Rapid evidence reviews on 12 clinical questions and Delphi method for expert consensus. Participants: The Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Task Force of the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine Brain Injury Special Interest Group convened a Working Group of 17 members and an external interdisciplinary expert panel of 32 clinician-scientists. Public stakeholder feedback was analyzed from 68 individuals and 23 organizations. Results: The first 2 Delphi votes asked the expert panel to rate their agreement with both the diagnostic criteria for mild TBI and the supporting evidence statements. In the first round, 10 of 12 evidence statements reached consensus agreement. Revised evidence statements underwent a second round of expert panel voting, where consensus was achieved for all. For the diagnostic criteria, the final agreement rate, after the third vote, was 90.7%. Public stakeholder feedback was incorporated into the diagnostic criteria revision prior to the third expert panel vote. A terminology question was added to the third round of Delphi voting, where 30 of 32 (93.8%) expert panel members agreed that ‘the diagnostic label ‘concussion’ may be used interchangeably with ‘mild TBI’ when neuroimaging is normal or not clinically indicated.’ Conclusions: New diagnostic criteria for mild TBI were developed through an evidence review and expert consensus process. Having unified diagnostic criteria for mild TBI can improve the quality and consistency of mild TBI research and clinical care.</p

The American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine Diagnostic Criteria for Mild Traumatic Brain Injury

Objective: To develop new diagnostic criteria for mild traumatic brain injury (TBI) that are appropriate for use across the lifespan and in sports, civilian trauma, and military settings. Design: Rapid evidence reviews on 12 clinical questions and Delphi method for expert consensus. Participants: The Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Task Force of the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine Brain Injury Special Interest Group convened a Working Group of 17 members and an external interdisciplinary expert panel of 32 clinician-scientists. Public stakeholder feedback was analyzed from 68 individuals and 23 organizations. Results: The first 2 Delphi votes asked the expert panel to rate their agreement with both the diagnostic criteria for mild TBI and the supporting evidence statements. In the first round, 10 of 12 evidence statements reached consensus agreement. Revised evidence statements underwent a second round of expert panel voting, where consensus was achieved for all. For the diagnostic criteria, the final agreement rate, after the third vote, was 90.7%. Public stakeholder feedback was incorporated into the diagnostic criteria revision prior to the third expert panel vote. A terminology question was added to the third round of Delphi voting, where 30 of 32 (93.8%) expert panel members agreed that ‘the diagnostic label ‘concussion’ may be used interchangeably with ‘mild TBI’ when neuroimaging is normal or not clinically indicated.’ Conclusions: New diagnostic criteria for mild TBI were developed through an evidence review and expert consensus process. Having unified diagnostic criteria for mild TBI can improve the quality and consistency of mild TBI research and clinical care.</p

The American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine Diagnostic Criteria for Mild Traumatic Brain Injury

Objective: To develop new diagnostic criteria for mild traumatic brain injury (TBI) that are appropriate for use across the lifespan and in sports, civilian trauma, and military settings. Design: Rapid evidence reviews on 12 clinical questions and Delphi method for expert consensus. Participants: The Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Task Force of the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine Brain Injury Special Interest Group convened a Working Group of 17 members and an external interdisciplinary expert panel of 32 clinician-scientists. Public stakeholder feedback was analyzed from 68 individuals and 23 organizations. Results: The first 2 Delphi votes asked the expert panel to rate their agreement with both the diagnostic criteria for mild TBI and the supporting evidence statements. In the first round, 10 of 12 evidence statements reached consensus agreement. Revised evidence statements underwent a second round of expert panel voting, where consensus was achieved for all. For the diagnostic criteria, the final agreement rate, after the third vote, was 90.7%. Public stakeholder feedback was incorporated into the diagnostic criteria revision prior to the third expert panel vote. A terminology question was added to the third round of Delphi voting, where 30 of 32 (93.8%) expert panel members agreed that ‘the diagnostic label ‘concussion’ may be used interchangeably with ‘mild TBI’ when neuroimaging is normal or not clinically indicated.’ Conclusions: New diagnostic criteria for mild TBI were developed through an evidence review and expert consensus process. Having unified diagnostic criteria for mild TBI can improve the quality and consistency of mild TBI research and clinical care.</p