Multi-disciplinary rehabilitation for acquired brain injury in adults of working age

Abstract

Problems following ABI vary. Consequently, different interventions and combinations of interventions are required to meet the needs of patients with different problems. Patients who present acutely to hospital with mild brain injury benefit from follow-up and appropriate information and advice. Those with moderate to severe brain injury benefit from routine follow-up so their needs for rehabilitation can be assessed. Intensive intervention appears to lead to earlier gains, and earlier intervention whilst still in emergency and acute care has been supported by limited evidence. The balance between intensity and cost-effectiveness has yet to be determined. Patients discharged from in-patient rehabilitation benefit from access to out-patient or community-based services appropriate to their needs. Group-based rehabilitation in a therapeutic milieu (where patients undergo neuropsychological rehabilitation in a therapeutic environment with a peer group of individuals facing similar challenges) represents an effective approach for patients requiring neuropsychological rehabilitation following severe brain injury. Not all questions in rehabilitation can be addressed by randomised controlled trials or other experimental approaches. For example, trial-based literature does not tell us which treatments work best for which patients over the long term, and which models of service represent value for money in the context of life-long care. In the future, such questions will need to be considered alongside practice-based evidence gathered from large systematic longitudinal cohort studies conducted in the context of routine clinical practice.

Effects of Age and Sex on Hospital Readmission in Traumatic Brain Injury

“…Most studies in the brain injury field include relatively small samples of patients (<100) 18 . In addition, most of the work related to hospital readmission has been conducted using a 30-day follow-up period.…”

Assessment of publication bias and outcome reporting bias in systematic reviews of health services and delivery research: A meta-epidemiological study

“…[20,22,28] In a review in which the review authors explicitly stated that they did not search for study protocols, 13 out of the 19 studies included in the review was judged as 'unclear' with regard to selective outcome reporting. [29] Factors associated with assessing outcome reporting bias. Intervention reviews were about ten times as likely to include an assessment of outcome reporting bias compared to association reviews (OR 10.29, 95% CI 3.47-30.53).…”

Assessing Features of Psychometric Assessment Instruments: A Comparison of the COSMIN Checklist with Other Critical Appraisal Tools

“…Thus, both study design and study results need to undergo quality assessment, also referred to as critical appraisal. In systematic reviews, the synthesis of results and findings on the design quality of each study can be used to classify interventions according to ‘levels of evidence’ (e.g., Bayley et al, 2014; Charters, Gillett, & Simpson, 2015; Turner‐Stokes, Pick, Nair, Disler, & Wade, 2015), which facilitates translation of research into practice.…”