The Applicability of the Patient-Specific Functional Scale (PSFS) in Rehabilitation for Patients with Acquired Brain Injury (ABI) – A Cohort Study

Aim: The primary aim of this study was to investigate the applicability of the Patient-Specific Functional Scale (PSFS) in patients with acquired brain injury (ABI) admitted to a specialized rehabilitation unit in a regional hospital. A secondary aim was to identify patient characteristics and functioning that predicted changes in the PSFS. Patients and methods: In a cohort study, 59 patients with ABI were assessed for the ability to complete the PSFS. A trained multidisciplinary team applied the PSFS as part of a collaborative development of rehabilitation goals. The modified Rankin Scale (mRS), the Functional Ambulation Categories (FAC), the Rivermead Behavioural Memory Test (RBMT), the Norwegian Basic Aphasia Assessment (NBAA) and the Loewenstein Occupational Therapy Cognitive Assessment (LOTCA) were used to identify characteristics of the sample. Multivariate regression analyses were performed to investigate associations between changes in the PSFS score from admission to discharge and a selected set of participant baseline characteristics and functioning. Results: Fifty-four patients (92%) of the patients with ABI were able to complete the PSFS. The five (8%) who were unable to complete the PSFS had severe cognitive or language impairment. The PSFS score improved by a mean of 2.6 (SD 2.0) points from admission to discharge. The LOTCA score made the strongest unique contribution to explain the change in the PSFS score (beta = 0.477, p= 0.020). Conclusion: In the present study, most patients with ABI (92%) were able to complete the PSFS. Cognitive function on admission was a predictor of improved functioning on the PSFS. Keywords: multidisciplinary rehabilitation; patient-identified goals; patient-specific outcome measure; shared decision making. © 2020 Evensen et al.publishedVersio

Rehabilitation Needs, Service Provision, and Costs in the First Year Following Traumatic Injuries: Protocol for a Prospective Cohort Study

Background: Traumatic injuries, defined as physical injuries with sudden onset, are a major public health problem worldwide. There is a paucity of knowledge regarding rehabilitation needs and service provision for patients with moderate and major trauma, even if rehabilitation research on a spectrum of specific injuries is available. Objective: This study aims to describe the prevalence of rehabilitation needs, the provided services, and functional outcomes across all age groups, levels of injury severity, and geographical regions in the first year after trauma. Direct and indirect costs of rehabilitation provision will also be assessed. The overarching aim is to better understand where to target future efforts. Methods: This is a population-based prospective follow-up study. It encompasses patients of all ages with moderate and severe acute traumatic injury (New Injury Severity Score >9) admitted to the regional trauma centers in southeastern and northern Norway over a 1-year period (2020). Sociodemographic and injury data will be collected. Upon hospital discharge, rehabilitation physicians estimate rehabilitation needs. Rehabilitation needs are assessed by the Rehabilitation Complexity Scale Extended–Trauma (RCS E–Trauma; specialized inpatient rehabilitation), Needs and Provision Complexity Scale (NPCS; community-based rehabilitation and health care service delivery), and Family Needs Questionnaire–Pediatric Version (FNQ-P). Patients, family caregivers, or both will complete questionnaires at 6- and 12-month follow-ups, which are supplemented by telephone interviews. Data on functioning and disability, mental health, health-related quality of life measured by the EuroQol Questionnaire (EQ-5D), and needs and provision of rehabilitation and health care services are collected by validated outcome measures. Unmet needs are represented by the discrepancies between the estimates of the RCS E–Trauma and NPCS at the time of a patient’s discharge and the rehabilitation services the patient has actually received. Formal service provision (including admission to inpatient- or outpatient-based rehabilitation), informal care, and associated costs will be collected. Results: The project was funded in December 2018 and approved by the Regional Committee for Medical and Health Research Ethics in October 2019. Inclusion of patients began at Oslo University Hospital on January 1, 2020, and at the University Hospital of North Norway on February 1, 2020. As of February 2021, we have enrolled 612 patients, and for 286 patients the 6-month follow-up has been completed. Papers will be drafted for publication throughout 2021 and 2022. Conclusions: This study will improve our understanding of existing service provision, the gaps between needs and services, and the associated costs for treating patients with moderate and major trauma. This may guide the improvement of rehabilitation and health care resource planning and allocation

The Applicability of the Patient-Specific Functional Scale (PSFS) in Rehabilitation for Patients with Acquired Brain Injury (ABI) – A Cohort Study

Aim: The primary aim of this study was to investigate the applicability of the Patient-Specific Functional Scale (PSFS) in patients with acquired brain injury (ABI) admitted to a specialized rehabilitation unit in a regional hospital. A secondary aim was to identify patient characteristics and functioning that predicted changes in the PSFS. Patients and methods: In a cohort study, 59 patients with ABI were assessed for the ability to complete the PSFS. A trained multidisciplinary team applied the PSFS as part of a collaborative development of rehabilitation goals. The modified Rankin Scale (mRS), the Functional Ambulation Categories (FAC), the Rivermead Behavioural Memory Test (RBMT), the Norwegian Basic Aphasia Assessment (NBAA) and the Loewenstein Occupational Therapy Cognitive Assessment (LOTCA) were used to identify characteristics of the sample. Multivariate regression analyses were performed to investigate associations between changes in the PSFS score from admission to discharge and a selected set of participant baseline characteristics and functioning. Results: Fifty-four patients (92%) of the patients with ABI were able to complete the PSFS. The five (8%) who were unable to complete the PSFS had severe cognitive or language impairment. The PSFS score improved by a mean of 2.6 (SD 2.0) points from admission to discharge. The LOTCA score made the strongest unique contribution to explain the change in the PSFS score (beta = 0.477, p= 0.020). Conclusion: In the present study, most patients with ABI (92%) were able to complete the PSFS. Cognitive function on admission was a predictor of improved functioning on the PSFS. Keywords: multidisciplinary rehabilitation; patient-identified goals; patient-specific outcome measure; shared decision making. © 2020 Evensen et al

Rehabilitation interventions after traumatic brain injury: a scoping review

Purpose: To (1) identify interventional research topics in traumatic brain injury (TBI) rehabilitation, (2) describe potential knowledge gaps, and (3) uncover further needs for interventional TBI rehabilitation research for patients and families. Method: We searched three databases (2006–2019) and screened 1552 non-duplicate articles. Titles and abstracts were screened for relevance, yielding 754 articles for full-text review. Of these, 425 were included, as relevant to the purpose of the scoping review. Findings: Among articles on TBI rehabilitation, the majority (71.8%) applied quantitative methodology; of these only 19.7% were randomized controlled trials. Severe TBI was described more often than mild/moderate TBI populations. Hospital vs community/home rehabilitation was 55.1% vs 37.2%; rehabilitation at workplace/school was described in only 4.5% articles, while in 7.2% the setting was undisclosed. Of 83 articles describing work/education, only 14 were in a work/school context. An additional focus in the work/education articles was activities of daily living (n = 28), cognition (n = 33) and emotions (n = 23), few targeted family or network. Conclusion: The main attention of interventional TBI rehabilitation studies has been on severe TBI and long-term rehabilitation. Gaps identified were rehabilitation of mild/moderate TBI populations, older populations, acute/sub-phase rehabilitation, return to work issues and studies including the family

The effectiveness of a family-centred intervention after traumatic brain injury: A pragmatic randomised controlled trial

Objectives: To determine the effectiveness of a family-centred intervention for patients with traumatic brain injury and family members. Design: Open-labelled, two-armed randomised controlled trial. Settings: Outpatient clinic and family residences. Participants: Sixty-one patients (33 women) with traumatic brain injury, with mean (SD) age 43.8 (12.2), and 63 family members (33 women), with mean (SD) age 42.6 (11.3), were assign to intervention ( n = 30 families) and control group ( n = 31 families). Intervention: An eight-session single-family intervention to improve individual and family functioning. Outcome measures: Self-reported questionnaires at start-of-treatment, median (IQR) 11.4 (8.4, 15.9) months post-injury, and at two follow-ups, 2.7 (2.3, 3.8) and 9.2 (8.2, 9.9) months after start-of-treatment. Primary outcome measures were the SF-36 Mental Component Summary (MCS) and Caregiver Burden Scale (CGB). Secondary outcome measures were the Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scale (FACES) and Quality of Life after Brain Injury Questionnaire (QOLIBRI). Group differences were analysed with linear mixed-model analysis for repeated measurements. Results: No significant between-group differences were found. The intervention group significantly improved on the MCS, the CGB and FACES in the treatment period, whereas the controls did not. The mean (SD) MCS change in the treatment period was 2.4 (1.1) points P = 0.028 in the intervention group. Mean (SE) MCS scores were 47.9 (1.26) and 47.3 (1.27) in the intervention and control group at last follow-up. Conclusions: Receiving an eight-session family intervention, in addition to specialised rehabilitation for the patients, was not superior to rehabilitation at a specialised traumatic brain injury outpatient clinic

Effect of vestibular rehabilitation on change in health-related quality of life in patients with dizziness and balance problems after traumatic brain injury: A randomized controlled trial

This paper is the first to present results of a vestibular rehabilitation intervention study on changes in healthrelated quality of life in patients with dizziness and balance problems after mild-to-moderate traumatic brain injury. The intervention group received exercises and guidance aimed at self-efficacy and how to cope with their dizziness and balance problems. In addition, both the intervention and control groups received treatment as usual, comprising multidisciplinary rehabilitation at a university hospital. The main result was measured as change on the Quality of Life after Brain Injury questionnaire. Post-concussion symptoms, vertigo and psychological distress were also measured. The study showed that the group receiving the vestibular rehabilitation intervention underwent more improvement in health-related quality of life than the group receiving usual treatment alone. Other factors that influenced the improvement in quality of life were psychological distress at the start of the study and fewer post-concussion symptoms

Effect of vestibular rehabilitation on change in health-related quality of life in patients with dizziness and balance problems after traumatic brain injury: A randomized controlled trial

Objective: Secondary analysis, testing the effect on change in health-related quality of life of group-based vestibular rehabilitation in patients with mild-moderate traumatic brain injury, dizziness and -balance problems. Design: A single-blind randomized controlled trial. Subjects: A total of 65 patients aged 16–60 years with a Rivermead Post-concussion Symptoms Questionnaire dizziness score ≥2, and Dizziness Handicap Inventory score >15 points. Data collection was performed at baseline 3.5 (standard deviation (SD) 2.1) months post-injury, end of intervention, and 4.4 (SD 1.0) months after baseline. Methods: Quality of Life after Brain Injury was the main outcome. Independent variables were demographic and injury variables, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, changes on the Rivermead Post-concussion Symptoms Questionnaire (RPQ3 physical and RPQ13 psychological/cognitive), and Vertigo Symptom Scale-Short Form. Results: Mean age of participants was 39.4 years (SD 13.0); 70.3% women. Predictors of change in the Quality of Life after Brain Injury were receiving the vestibular rehabilitation (p=0.049), baseline psychological distress (p=0.020), and change in RPQ3 physical (p=0.047) and RPQ13 psychological/cognitive (p=0.047). Adjusted R2 was 0.399, F=6.13, p<0.001. Conclusion: There was an effect in favour of the intervention group in improvement in health-related quality of life. Changes on the Rivermead Post-concussion Symptoms Questionnaire were also associated with change on the Quality of Life after Brain Injury

Rehabilitation and outcomes after complicated vs uncomplicated mild TBI: results from the CENTER-TBI study

International audienceBackground: Despite existing guidelines for managing mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI), evidence-based treatments are still scarce and large-scale studies on the provision and impact of specific rehabilitation services are needed. This study aimed to describe the provision of rehabilitation to patients after complicated and uncomplicated mTBI and investigate factors associated with functional outcome, symptom burden, and TBI-specific health-related quality of life (HRQOL) up to six months after injury. Methods: Patients (n = 1379) with mTBI from the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in TBI (CENTER-TBI) study who reported whether they received rehabilitation services during the first six months post-injury and who participated in outcome assessments were included. Functional outcome was measured with the Glasgow Outcome Scale – Extended (GOSE), symptom burden with the Rivermead Post Concussion Symptoms Questionnaire (RPQ), and HRQOL with the Quality of Life after Brain Injury – Overall Scale (QOLIBRI-OS). We examined whether transition of care (TOC) pathways, receiving rehabilitation services, sociodemographic (incl. geographic), premorbid, and injury-related factors were associated with outcomes using regression models. For easy comparison, we estimated ordinal regression models for all outcomes where the scores were classified based on quantiles. Results: Overall, 43% of patients with complicated and 20% with uncomplicated mTBI reported receiving rehabilitation services, primarily in physical and cognitive domains. Patients with complicated mTBI had lower functional level, higher symptom burden, and lower HRQOL compared to uncomplicated mTBI. Rehabilitation services at three or six months and a higher number of TOC were associated with unfavorable outcomes in all models, in addition to pre-morbid psychiatric problems. Being male and having more than 13 years of education was associated with more favorable outcomes. Sustaining major trauma was associated with unfavorable GOSE outcome, whereas living in Southern and Eastern European regions was associated with lower HRQOL. Conclusions: Patients with complicated mTBI reported more unfavorable outcomes and received rehabilitation services more frequently. Receiving rehabilitation services and higher number of care transitions were indicators of injury severity and associated with unfavorable outcomes. The findings should be interpreted carefully and validated in future studies as we applied a novel analytic approach. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02210221