Dysexecutive symptoms and carer strain following acquired brain injury: Changes measured before and after holistic neuropsychological rehabilitation

Update on the Efficacy of Cognitive Rehabilitation After Moderate to Severe Traumatic Brain Injury: A Scoping Review

OBJECTIVES

To identify, categorize, and analyze the methodological issues of cognitive rehabilitation of patients with moderate to severe traumatic brain injury and its efficacy.

DATA SOURCES

Pubmed and PsycINFO were searched for studies published between 2015 and 2021 using keywords for cognitive intervention and traumatic brain injury.

STUDY SELECTION

Two independent reviewers selected articles concerning cognitive rehabilitation for adults with traumatic brain injury. Of 458 studies, 97 full-text articles were assessed and 46 met the inclusion criteria.

DATA EXTRACTION

Data were analyzed by 1 reviewer according to criteria concerning the methodological quality of studies.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Results showed a large scope of 7 cognitive domains targeted by interventions, delivered mostly in individual sessions (83%) with an integrative cognitive approach (48%). Neuroimaging tools as a measure of outcome remained scarce, featuring in only 20% of studies. Forty-three studies reported significant effects of cognitive rehabilitation, among which 7 fulfilled a high methodological level of evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

Advances and shortcomings in cognitive rehabilitation have both been highlighted and led us to develop methodological key points for future studies. The choice of outcome measures, the selection of control interventions, and the use of combined rehabilitation should be investigated in further studies.

Metacognitive Treatment in Acquired Brain Injury and Its Applicability to Aphasia: A Systematic Review

Purpose

The purpose of this systematic review is to identify the utility of metacognitive therapeutic intervention for persons with acquired brain injury (ABI), with a focus on persons with aphasia.

Methods

A search of six databases resulted in two hundred and sixty-six unique manuscripts relating to the explicit use of metacognitive treatment for people with ABI. Two independent reviewers rated abstracts for inclusion or exclusion of the study given predetermined criteria. Twenty-nine articles, five of which included people with aphasia, were selected for inclusion in this systematic review. SCED+ and PEDro+ rating scales were used to rate the methodological quality of each study.

Results

Methodological quality of the 29 studies that met inclusion criteria ranged from weak to high quality studies. Three -hundred and sixty-nine individuals with ABI took part in the 29 studies. Varying treatment methods were employed. Outcome measures were inconsistent. Metacognitive treatment has been applied to people with aphasia with positive results, but efficacy of the treatment cannot yet be determined.

Conclusions

Metacognitive therapeutic intervention tends to be effective for persons with acquired brain injury (ABI) despite variability between intervention designs and treatment outcomes across studies. Due to so few studies with participants with aphasia, we were unable to draw conclusions regarding the efficacy of metacognitive treatment for people with aphasia. Further research on the efficacy of metacognitive treatment for this population is warranted.

Client experiences with holistic neuropsychological rehabilitation: "It is an ongoing process"

The effectiveness of holistic neuropsychological rehabilitation for people with acquired brain injury has previously been demonstrated by means of standardized and routinely administered outcome measures. However, the most important outcomes from the perspective of former clients are largely unknown. This study explored the experience of participating in a holistic neuropsychological rehabilitation programme by conducting three focus groups with twelve former clients who had sustained a brain injury. Data were transcribed verbatim and analysed using thematic analysis. "It is an ongoing process" emerged as the overarching theme for the experience of recovery from brain injury. Four subthemes, or phases, were identified. Participants went through (1) a phase of confrontation, after which they (2) trained their skills and strategies, and (3) experimented with these in daily life. In the end, clients reached a phase of (4) coming to terms with their injury. Participants described increased levels of self-esteem, sense of competence, and adaptation as the most important outcomes of the programme, as these factors helped them regain a sense of identity. The results indicate that including these factors in outcome evaluations of complex interventions after brain injury may be important as they appear essential for capturing the client's perspective on change.

Group cognitive rehabilitation to reduce the psychological impact of multiple sclerosis on quality of life: the CRAMMS RCT

BACKGROUND

People with multiple sclerosis have problems with memory and attention. The effectiveness of cognitive rehabilitation has not been established.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives were to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a cognitive rehabilitation programme for people with multiple sclerosis.

DESIGN

This was a multicentre, randomised controlled trial in which participants were randomised in a ratio of 6 : 5 to receive cognitive rehabilitation plus usual care or usual care alone. Participants were assessed at 6 and 12 months after randomisation.

SETTING

The trial was set in hospital neurology clinics and community services.

PARTICIPANTS

Participants were people with multiple sclerosis who had cognitive problems, were aged 18-69 years, could travel to attend group sessions and gave informed consent.

INTERVENTION

The intervention was a group cognitive rehabilitation programme delivered weekly by an assistant psychologist to between four and six participants for 10 weeks.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was the Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale - Psychological subscale at 12 months. Secondary outcomes included results from the Everyday Memory Questionnaire, the 30-Item General Health Questionnaire, the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version and a service use questionnaire from participants, and the Everyday Memory Questionnaire - relative version and the Modified Carer Strain Index from a relative or friend of the participant.

RESULTS

Of the 449 participants randomised, 245 were allocated to cognitive rehabilitation (intervention group) and 204 were allocated to usual care (control group). Of these, 214 in the intervention group and 173 in the control group were included in the primary analysis. There was no clinically important difference in the Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale - Psychological subscale score between the two groups at the 12-month follow-up (adjusted difference in means -0.6, 95% confidence interval -1.5 to 0.3; p = 0.20). There were no important differences between the groups in relation to cognitive abilities, fatigue, employment, or carer strain at follow-up. However, there were differences, although small, between the groups in the Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale - Psychological subscale score at 6 months (adjusted difference in means -0.9, 95% confidence interval -1.7 to -0.1; p = 0.03) and in everyday memory on the Everyday Memory Questionnaire as reported by participants at 6 (adjusted difference in means -5.3, 95% confidence interval -8.7 to -1.9) and 12 months (adjusted difference in means -4.4, 95% confidence interval -7.8 to -0.9) and by relatives at 6 (adjusted difference in means -5.4, 95% confidence interval -9.1 to -1.7) and 12 months (adjusted difference in means -5.5, 95% confidence interval -9.6 to -1.5) in favour of the cognitive rehabilitation group. There were also differences in mood on the 30-Item General Health Questionnaire at 6 (adjusted difference in means -3.4, 95% confidence interval -5.9 to -0.8) and 12 months (adjusted difference in means -3.4, 95% confidence interval -6.2 to -0.6) in favour of the cognitive rehabilitation group. A qualitative analysis indicated perceived benefits of the intervention. There was no evidence of a difference in costs (adjusted difference in means -£574.93, 95% confidence interval -£1878.93 to £729.07) or quality-adjusted life-year gain (adjusted difference in means 0.00, 95% confidence interval -0.02 to 0.02). No safety concerns were raised and no deaths were reported.

LIMITATIONS

The trial included a sample of participants who had relatively severe cognitive problems in daily life. The trial was not powered to perform subgroup analyses. Participants could not be blinded to treatment allocation.

CONCLUSIONS

This cognitive rehabilitation programme had no long-term benefits on quality of life for people with multiple sclerosis.

FUTURE WORK

Future research should evaluate the selection of those who may benefit from cognitive rehabilitation.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN09697576.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 4. See the National Institute for Health Research Journals Library website for further project information.