IntroductionAssault is the third most common cause of traumatic brain injury (TBI), after falls and road traffic collisions. TBI can lead to multiple long-term physical, cognitive and emotional sequelae, including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Intentional violence may further compound the psychological trauma of the event, in a way that conventional outcome measures, like the Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS), fail to capture. This study aims to examine the influence of assault on self-reported outcomes, including quality of life and symptoms of PTSD.MethodsQuestionnaire were completed by 256 patients attending a TBI clinic, including Quality of Life after Brain Injury (QOLIBRI) and PTSD checklist (PCL-C). Medical records provided demographics, clinical data and aetiology of injury. Subjective outcomes were compared between assault and other causes.ResultsOf 202 patients analysed, 21% sustained TBI from assault. There was no difference in severity of injuries between assault and non-assault groups. No relationship was found between self-reported outcomes and TBI severity or GOS. The assault group scored worse in all self-reported questionnaires, with statistically significant differences for measures of PTSD and post-concussion symptoms. However, using threshold scores, the prevalence of PTSD in assaulted patients was not higher than non-assault. After adjusting for age, ethnicity and the presence of extra-cranial trauma, assault did not have a significant effect on questionnaire scores. Exploratory analysis showed that assault and road traffic accidents were associated with significantly worse outcomes compared to falls.ConclusionQuality of life is significantly related to functional and psychological outcomes after TBI. Assaulted patients suffer from worse self-reported outcomes than other patients, but these differences were insignificant when adjusted for demographic factors. Intentionality behind the traumatic event is likely more important than cause alone. Differences in quality of life and other self-reported outcomes are not reflected by the Glasgow Outcome Scale. This information is useful in arranging earlier and targeted review and support.
ObjectivesTo estimate the prevalence of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in a large civilian population with traumatic brain injury (TBI), and to assess whether brain injury severity is correlated with PTSD symptoms.DesignObservational, cross-sectional study.Setting and participantsOutpatient clinic in a major UK trauma centre and secondary care hospital. Estimates of PTSD prevalence are based on 171 sampled individuals attending TBI clinic within an 18-month period. Analysis of the relationship between TBI severity and PTSD was performed on the subset of 127 patients for whom injury severity data were also available.MethodsCivilian TBI clinic attendees completed validated self-report questionnaires assessing PTSD (PTSD Checklist Civilian Version (PCL-C)) and other psychiatric symptoms. From this, the prevalence of PTSD was estimated in our cohort. Postresuscitation Glasgow Coma Score and Marshall grade on CT brain scan were recorded as indicators of brain injury severity. A hierarchical regression explored whether TBI severity may predict PTSD scores.ResultsA high prevalence of PTSD was estimated (21% with PCL-C score >50). Higher Marshall grading displayed a slight negative correlation with PTSD symptoms. This statistically significant relationship persisted after confounding factors such as depression and postconcussion symptoms were controlled for.ConclusionsPTSD and TBI frequently coexist, share antecedents and overlap in their resultant symptoms. This complexity has given rise to conflicting hypotheses about relationships between the two. This research reveals that PTSD is common in civilians with TBI (adding to evidence drawn from military populations). The analysis indicated that more severe brain injury may exert a slight protective influence against the development of PTSD—potentially by disrupting implicit access to traumatic memories, or via overlapping neuropsychiatric symptoms that impede diagnosis. The association suggests that further research is warranted to explore the reuse of routine clinical and neuroimaging data—investigating its potential to predict risk of psychiatric morbidity.
Many leaflets did not include important information recommended by SIGN guidelines. There was considerable variation in the quality and clarity of written discharge advice provided. This may reduce the ability of parents to recognize rare but serious complications. It is recommended that a standardized HI information leaflet based on SIGN guidelines be used across all Scottish EDs.
Lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX) is the only drug currently approved by the FDA for the treatment of Binge-Eating Disorder (BED), but little is known about the behavioural mechanisms that underpin the efficacy of LDX in treating BED. We examined the behavioural and neural effects of an acute dose of LDX (50 mg) in 22 women with binge-eating symptomatology using a randomised, crossover, double-blind, placebo-controlled experimental medicine design. LDX reduced self-reported appetite ratings and intake of both a pasta meal and a palatable cookie snack. LDX also decreased the eating rate of pasta but not of cookies and reduced self-reported liking ratings for pasta at the end of the meal. When viewing food pictures during an fMRI scan, LDX reduced activity bilaterally in the thalamus. LDX enhanced sustained attention and reduced impulsive responding in a continuous performance task but had no effect on emotional bias or working memory. These results suggest the observed effects of LDX on food intake (and by implication the efficacy of LDX in treating BED) may be related to the actions of the drug to enhance satiety, reduce food-related reward responding when full and/or increase cognitive control. Novel pharmacotherapies for BED might be most effective if they have a broad spectrum of effects on appetite, reward and cognition.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.