Search

The objective of the study was to examine changes in coping and their predictors in patients in the chronic phase after an acquired brain injury with prominent neuropsychiatric symptoms. Patients with brain injury were recruited from consecutive admissions to the outpatient clinics of four mental health centers in the Netherlands. Patients received psychoeducation and/or one or more individual treatment sessions that were not targeting coping styles. Forty-two patients and thirty-two significant others participated. Patients reported a significantly greater use of passive and avoidance coping than both the general population and patients with brain injury without neuropsychiatric symptoms. There were statistically significant increases in avoidance coping between T1 and T2 (t = 2.0; p <0.05). Less neuropsychiatric symptoms at T1 were associated with increases in avoidance coping, and more neuropsychiatric symptoms were associated with decreases in avoidance coping (beta = -3.3; p <0.001). Patients' underestimation of their deficits at T1 was associated with greater increases in active coping (beta = -2.33; p <0.05) than were patients' accurate estimation and overestimation of deficits at T1. Self-reported executive functioning at T1 was not associated with changes in coping. In conclusion, avoidance coping increased in the chronic phase after brain injury. The changes in coping could partially be explained by the level of neuropsychiatric symptoms and the level of self-awareness but not by self-reported executive functioning, which should be considered in treatment programs.

Dynamic testing includes procedures that examine the effects of brief training on test performance where pre- to post-training change reflects patients' learning potential. The objective of this systematic review was to provide clinicians and researchers insight into the concept and methodology of dynamic testing and to explore its predictive validity in adult patients with cognitive impairments. The following electronic databases were searched: PubMed, PsychINFO, and Embase/Medline. Of 1141 potentially relevant articles, 24 studies met the inclusion criteria. The mean methodological quality score was 4.6 of 8. Eleven different dynamic tests were used. The majority of studies used dynamic versions of the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test. The training mostly consisted of a combination of performance feedback, reinforcement, expanded instruction, or strategy training. Learning potential was quantified using numerical (post-test score, difference score, gain score, regression residuals) and categorical (groups) indices. In five of six longitudinal studies, learning potential significantly predicted rehabilitation outcome. Three of four studies supported the added value of dynamic testing over conventional testing in predicting rehabilitation outcome. This review provides preliminary support that dynamic tests can provide a valuable addition to conventional tests to assess patients' abilities. Although promising, there was a large variability in methods used for dynamic testing and, therefore, it remains unclear which dynamic testing methods are most appropriate for patients with cognitive impairments. More research is warranted to further evaluate and refine dynamic testing methodology and to further elucidate its predictive validity concerning rehabilitation outcomes relative to other cognitive and functional status indices.

INTRODUCTION: Self-management for people with epilepsy (PWE) should lead to shared decision-making and thus to adherence to the treatment plan. eHealth is an important way of supporting PWE in their self-management.METHOD: In this survey, we used a mixed method to explore the following: 1) which factors were monitored by PWE and how (using pen and paper or eHealth-tools), 2) how many PWE own a computer or smartphone, and 3) how do they perceive the use of eHealth. A consecutive series of 1000 PWE attending the outpatient clinic of a tertiary epilepsy center were asked to fill in a questionnaire.RESULTS: In comparison with the general population, fewer PWE owned a computer or smartphone. They were, however, more likely to self-monitor their health than other patients suffering from a chronic condition. Although PWE did not use eHealth-tools often, they perceived it as a user-friendly tool, promoting health behavior as well as adherence. On the other hand, problems with privacy and the perception that not everyone is able to use eHealth were considered as disadvantages by PWE. Promoting self-care was perceived as both an advantage and a disadvantage. It was seen as an advantage when PWE mentioned the option of eHealth-tools in order to gain insight into one's epilepsy. At the same time, it was seen as a disadvantage because it confronts PWE with their disease, which causes emotional stress.CONCLUSION: The high level of self-monitoring combined with a low usage of eHealth-tools seems to indicate that there is a need for a more tailored approach to stimulate the use of eHealth-tools by PWE. Further research should focus on this aspect, e.g., what PWE need in order to make more use of eHealth-tools in their self-care.

Objective: To investigate whether the self-management intervention was implemented as intended. Additionally, we studied involvement in and satisfaction with the intervention among patients, their partners and therapists. Design: Mixed method, prospective study. Setting: Outpatient facilities of hospitals/rehabilitation centres. Participants: Stroke patients, their partners and therapists from the experimental arm of the Restore4Stroke Self-Management study. Intervention: 'Plan Ahead!' is a 10-week self-management intervention for stroke patients and partners, consisting of seven two-hour group sessions. Proactive action planning, education and peer support are main elements of this intervention. Main measures: Session logs, questionnaires for therapists, patients and their partners, and focus groups. Data analysis: Qualitative data were analysed with thematic analysis supplemented by quasi-statistics. Quantitative data were reported as descriptive statistics. Results: The study sample consisted of 53 patients and 26 partners taking part in the intervention, and all therapists delivering the intervention (N = 19). At least three-quarters of the intervention sessions were attended by 33 patients and 24 partners. On a scale from 1 to 10, patients, partners and therapists rated the intervention with mean scores of 7.5 (SD1.6), 7.8 (SD. 7) and 7.4 (SD. 7), respectively. Peer support was the most frequently appreciated element for participants and therapists. The proactive action planning tool was adequately applied in 76 of the 96 sessions. Conclusion: Although the target audience was reached and both participants and therapists were satisfied with the intervention, the proactive action planning tool that distinguishes the current intervention from existing stroke-specific self-management interventions was only partly implemented according to protocol.

Background: Approximately 20 % of children and adolescents who have sustained mild traumatic brain injuries may experience long-term consequences, including cognitive problems, post-traumatic stress symptoms and reduced load-bearing capacity. The underestimation and belated recognition of these long-term consequences may lead to chronic and disruptive problems, such as participation problems in school and in social relationships. The aim of this study is to examine the level of activities and participation of children and adolescents up to 6 months after a mild traumatic brain injury and to identify possible outcome predictors. Another aim is to investigate the effectiveness of an early psychoeducational intervention and compare the results with those obtained with usual care. Methods/design: This paper presents the Brains Ahead! study design, a randomised controlled trial nested within a multicentre, longitudinal, prospective cohort study. The eligible participants include children and adolescents between 6 and 18 years of age who have experienced a mild traumatic brain injury within the last 2 weeks. The cohort study will include 500 children and adolescents with a mild traumatic brain injury and their caregivers. A subset of 140 participants and their caregivers will be included in the randomised controlled trial. Participants in the randomised controlled trial will be randomly assigned to either the psychoeducational intervention group or the usual care control group. The psychoeducational intervention involves one face-to-face contact and one phone contact with the interventionist, during which the consequences of mild traumatic brain injury and advice for coping with these consequences to prevent long-term problems will be discussed. Information will be provided both verbally and in a booklet. The primary outcome domain is activities and participation, which will be evaluated using the Child and Adolescent Scale of Participation. Participants are evaluated 2 w

Background: To our knowledge, there has been no overall systematic review focusing on the methodological quality of full economic evaluation studies of self-management interventions. Our objective was to systematically review the literature of full economic evaluation studies of self-management interventions in adult chronic patients and to investigate their methodological quality and cost-effectiveness. Methods: A data extraction form was developed to assess general and randomized controlled trial (RCT) -related characteristics, quality, of the RCTs, economic information and quality of the economic evaluation studies by means of a quality assessment (CHEC-list for trial-based studies, adjusted CHEC-list for model-based studies). Results: Twenty-three reports were found. Sixteen studies (73 percent) lack information on the control intervention(s). Only one study fulfilled all three criteria for quality of RCTs and five studies (23 percent) did not meet any of these criteria. This review included one model-based study; the other studies were trial-based economic evaluation studies based on a RCT. Eight studies (35 percent) used a societal perspective and 12 (60 percent) synthesized costs and effects. Seven studies were categorized into the highest category (

Background: Approximately 20 % of children and adolescents who have sustained mild traumatic brain injuries may experience long-term consequences, including cognitive problems, post-traumatic stress symptoms and reduced load-bearing capacity. The underestimation and belated recognition of these long-term consequences may lead to chronic and disruptive problems, such as participation problems in school and in social relationships. The aim of this study is to examine the level of activities and participation of children and adolescents up to 6 months after a mild traumatic brain injury and to identify possible outcome predictors. Another aim is to investigate the effectiveness of an early psychoeducational intervention and compare the results with those obtained with usual care.Methods/design: This paper presents the Brains Ahead! study design, a randomised controlled trial nested within a multicentre, longitudinal, prospective cohort study. The eligible participants include children and adolescents between 6 and 18 years of age who have experienced a mild traumatic brain injury within the last 2 weeks. The cohort study will include 500 children and adolescents with a mild traumatic brain injury and their caregivers. A subset of 140 participants and their caregivers will be included in the randomised controlled trial. Participants in the randomised controlled trial will be randomly assigned to either the psychoeducational intervention group or the usual care control group. The psychoeducational intervention involves one face-to-face contact and one phone contact with the interventionist, during which the consequences of mild traumatic brain injury and advice for coping with these consequences to prevent long-term problems will be discussed. Information will be provided both verbally and in a booklet. The primary outcome domain is activities and participation, which will be evaluated using the Child and Adolescent Scale of Participation. Participants are evaluated 2 we

OBJECTIVE: To review systematically studies investigating the convergent, criterion, and predictive validity of multi-domain cognitive screening instruments in the first four weeks after stroke.DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases (Pubmed, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Embase) were searched until June 2014.REVIEW METHODS: Studies concerning screening for cognitive dysfunction in stroke patients using multi-domain instruments, within four weeks postinfarct or haemorrhagic stroke, using tests taking no longer than one hour. Convergent, criterion, and predictive validity were examined.RESULTS: A total of 51 studies investigating 16 cognitive screening instruments were identified. None of the instruments covered all of the most affected cognitive domains. Only one study investigated the convergent validity of a multi-domain test during the (sub)acute phase after stroke. A total of 15 studies examined the criterion validity of cognitive measurements during the acute phase after stroke. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment and Higher Cortical Function Deficit Test had good criterion validity. A total of 24 studies examined the predictive ability of multi-domain cognitive instruments applied in the acute phase after stroke. The Cognistat, Montreal Cognitive Assessment, and Functional Independence Measure-cognitive showed good predictive validity. The Mini-Mental State Examination is the most widely used cognitive screening instrument, but shows insufficient criterion validity.CONCLUSION: None of the existing instruments fulfils all criteria. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment is the best candidate at present, provided items measuring speed of information processing are added, and further studies investigating the optimal cut-offs are conducted.