Promoting early treatment for mild traumatic brain injury in primary care with a guideline implementation tool: a pilot cluster randomised trial

Management of Psychological Complications Following Mild Traumatic Brain Injury

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

It has been clear for decades that psychological factors often contribute to mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) outcome, but an emerging literature has begun to clarify which specific factors are important, when, for whom, and how they impact recovery. This review aims to summarize the contemporary evidence on psychological determinants of recovery from mTBI and its implications for clinical management.

RECENT FINDINGS

Comorbid mental health disorders and specific illness beliefs and coping behaviors (e.g., fear avoidance) are associated with worse recovery from mTBI. Proactive assessment and intervention for psychological complications can improve clinical outcomes. Evidence-based treatments for primary mental health disorders are likely also effective for treating mental health disorders after mTBI, and can reduce overall post-concussion symptoms. Broad-spectrum cognitive-behavioral therapy may modestly improve post-concussion symptoms, but tailoring delivery to individual psychological risk factors and/or symptoms may improve its efficacy. Addressing psychological factors in treatments delivered primarily by non-psychologists is a promising and cost-effective approach for enhancing clinical management of mTBI. Recent literature emphasizes a bio-psycho-socio-ecological framework for understanding mTBI recovery and a precision rehabilitation approach to maximize recovery. Integrating psychological principles into rehabilitation and tailoring interventions to specific risk factors may improve clinical management of mTBI.

Relationship Between Neighborhood Disadvantage and Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Symptoms

OBJECTIVE

To test the hypotheses that (1) higher neighborhood disadvantage is associated with greater injury-related symptom severity in civilians with mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) and (2) neighborhood disadvantage remains predictive after controlling for other established predictors.

SETTING

Level 1 trauma center and affiliated academic medical center.

PARTICIPANTS

N = 171 individuals with mTBI.

DESIGN

Prospective cohort study.

MAIN MEASURES

Rivermead Post Concussion Symptoms Questionnaire (RPQ) total score assessed less than 24 hours and at 2 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months postinjury. Linear mixed-effects models were used to assess the relationship between predictor variables and mTBI-related symptom burden (RPQ score). Neighborhood disadvantage was quantified by the Area Deprivation Index (ADI), a composite of 17 markers of socioeconomic position (SEP) scored at the census block group level.

RESULTS

Individuals in the upper ADI quartile of the national distribution displayed higher RPQ symptoms than those in the lower 3 quartiles ( P < .001), with a nonsignificant ADI × visit interaction ( P = .903). In a multivariable model, the effect of ADI remained significant ( P = .034) after adjusting for demographics, individual SEP, and injury factors. Other unique predictors in the multivariable model were gender (gender × visit P = .035), health insurance type ( P = .017), and injury-related litigation ( P = .012).

CONCLUSION

Neighborhood disadvantage as quantified by the ADI is robustly associated with greater mTBI-related symptom burden throughout the first 6 months postinjury. That the effect of ADI remained after controlling for demographics, individual SEP, and injury characteristics implies that neighborhood disadvantage is an important, understudied factor contributing to clinical recovery from mTBI.

Derivation of a minimal clinically important difference score for the WHODAS 2.0 in mild traumatic brain injury

BACKGROUND

Mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) treatment research is hindered by lack of clinically meaningful and responsive outcome measures. One promising measure is the World Health Organisation Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0), although minimal clinically important differences (MCID) for have not been established.

OBJECTIVE

To estimate MCID for the WHODAS 2.0 for mTBI.

METHODS

We analysed two prospectively collected mTBI datasets (n = 225) attending adult outpatient clinics in British Columbia, Canada. Participants completed the 12-item WHODAS 2.0, Patient Global Impression of Change scale, and Rivermead Post-Concussion Symptoms Questionnaire. We used anchor- and distribution-based methods to explore MCIDs in WHODAS 2.0 scores.

RESULTS

For Study 1 (n = 131), the anchor and distribution-based approaches produced minimal change estimates ranging from 1.3 to 2.8 interval scores. For Study 2 (n = 94), the anchor and distribution-based approaches produced minimal change estimates from 2.2 to 3.2 interval scores. For certain subgroups based on age, sex, and post-concussion severity, minimal change estimates were slightly higher.

CONCLUSION

An MCID of 3.5 interval WHODAS 2.0 points would conservatively capture meaningful change in adults of varying age, sex, and post-concussion symptom severity. Such a uniform metric will assist future mTBI intervention studies to improve standards of care and evaluation of outcomes.

Trends in guideline implementation: an updated scoping review

Background

Guidelines aim to support evidence-informed practice but are inconsistently used without implementation strategies. Our prior scoping review revealed that guideline implementation interventions were not selected and tailored based on processes known to enhance guideline uptake and impact. The purpose of this study was to update the prior scoping review.

Methods

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, CINAHL, Scopus, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for studies published from 2014 to January 2021 that evaluated guideline implementation interventions. We screened studies in triplicate and extracted data in duplicate. We reported study and intervention characteristics and studies that achieved impact with summary statistics.

Results

We included 118 studies that implemented guidelines on 16 clinical topics. With regard to implementation planning, 21% of studies referred to theories or frameworks, 50% pre-identified implementation barriers, and 36% engaged stakeholders in selecting or tailoring interventions. Studies that employed frameworks (n=25) most often used the theoretical domains framework (28%) or social cognitive theory (28%). Those that pre-identified barriers (n=59) most often consulted literature (60%). Those that engaged stakeholders (n=42) most often consulted healthcare professionals (79%). Common interventions included educating professionals about guidelines (44%) and information systems/technology (41%). Most studies employed multi-faceted interventions (75%). A total of 97 (82%) studies achieved impact (improvements in one or more reported outcomes) including 10 (40% of 25) studies that employed frameworks, 28 (47.45% of 59) studies that pre-identified barriers, 22 (52.38% of 42) studies that engaged stakeholders, and 21 (70% of 30) studies that employed single interventions.

Conclusions

Compared to our prior review, this review found that more studies used processes to select and tailor interventions, and a wider array of types of interventions across the Mazza taxonomy. Given that most studies achieved impact, this might reinforce the need for implementation planning. However, even studies that did not plan implementation achieved impact. Similarly, even single interventions achieved impact. Thus, a future systematic review based on this data is warranted to establish if the use of frameworks, barrier identification, stakeholder engagement, and multi-faceted interventions are associated with impact.

Trial registration

The protocol was registered with Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/4nxpr) and published in JBI Evidence Synthesis.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13012-022-01223-6.

Effectiveness of a guideline implementation tool for supporting management of mental health complications after mild traumatic brain injury in primary care: protocol for a randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Mental health problems frequently interfere with recovery from mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) but are under-recognised and undertreated. Consistent implementation of clinical practice guidelines for proactive detection and treatment of mental health complications after mTBI will require evidence-based knowledge translation strategies. This study aims to determine if a guideline implementation tool can reduce the risk of mental health complications following mTBI. If effective, our guideline implementation tool could be readily scaled up and/or adapted to other healthcare settings.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will conduct a triple-blind cluster randomised trial to evaluate a clinical practice guideline implementation tool designed to support proactive management of mental health complications after mTBI in primary care. We will recruit 535 adults (aged 18-69 years) with mTBI from six emergency departments and two urgent care centres in the Greater Vancouver Area, Canada. Upon enrolment at 2 weeks post-injury, they will complete mental health symptom screening tools and designate a general practitioner (GP) or primary care clinic where they plan to seek follow-up care. Primary care clinics will be randomised into one of two arms. In the guideline implementation tool arm, GPs will receive actionable mental health screening test results tailored to their patient and their patients will receive written education about mental health problems after mTBI and treatment options. In the usual care control arm, GPs and their patients will receive generic information about mTBI. Patient participants will complete outcome measures remotely at 2, 12 and 26 weeks post-injury. The primary outcome is rate of new or worsened mood, anxiety or trauma-related disorder on the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview at 26 weeks.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Study procedures were approved by the University of British Columbia's research ethics board (H20-00562). The primary report for the trial results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. Our knowledge user team members (patients, GPs, policymakers) will co-create a plan for public dissemination.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ClinicalTrials.gov Registry (NCT04704037).

Role of the Treatment of Post-Concussion Syndrome in Preventing Long-Term Sequela Like Depression: A Systematic Review of the Randomized Controlled Trials

Traumatic brain injury of any severity can result in post-concussion syndrome (PCS). Although the post-concussive symptoms are complex, there is an emerging scientific consensus regarding the initiation of the treatment for these symptoms to improve quality of life and prevent long-term effects. The objective of this systematic review is to assess the comprehensive interventions used for the PCS and it aims to appraise if these interventions could prevent the development of depression as a complication. This research has used randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluate the treatment of PCS and its effect on long-term complications like depression. We searched PubMed/MEDLINE, PubMed Central, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and EMBASE from January 1, 2016 to May 31, 2021 for our literature search. A quality check was conducted on the identified studies using the Cochrane risk of bias quality assessment tool (modified Cochrane RoB 2). In total, we included 11 RCTs and used Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines for the reporting of this systematic review. Most of the studies reinforced early initiation of the treatment by providing education to the patients and conducting their risk assessment. Strong evidence for the multidisciplinary treatment consisting of cognitive-behavioral therapy, psychoeducation, and physiotherapy is emphasized by some studies. More studies with a longer follow-up period are required to assess the effectiveness of intervention more accurately on depression. Regardless, this study will discuss guidelines and provide direction to physicians. It will help in developing future guidelines by addressing the clinical gaps in the implementation of these guidelines.

Barriers and facilitators to the management of mental health complications after mild traumatic brain injury

Background:

Clinical practice guidelines for mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) management call on family physicians to proactively screen and initiate treatment for mental health complications, but evidence suggests that this does not happen consistently. The authors aimed to identify physician-perceived barriers and facilitators to early management of mental health complications following mTBI.

Methods & results:

Semi-structured interviews based on the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) were conducted with 11 family physicians. Interview transcripts were analyzed using directed content analysis. Factors influencing management of mental health post-mTBI were identified along five TDF domains.

Conclusion:

Family physicians could benefit from accessible and easily implemented resources to manage post-mTBI mental health conditions, having a better defined role in this process, and formalization of referrals to mental health specialists.

Best practice recommendations call for family doctors to proactively screen for and treat mental health problems that might arise after a mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) (also known as a concussion). However, previous studies show that these recommendations are not followed consistently. The authors aimed to find reasons why this is not happening by interviewing 11 family doctors. The authors found that family doctors are mostly unaware of resources to guide their practice, are unsure about their role in mental health management, and experience difficulties in referring their patients to specialists for mental health care. Actively providing family doctors with knowledge and tools that help them initiate mental health care, as well as a structure for mental health referrals after mild traumatic brain injury, would help doctors apply best practice recommendations.