Search

Background: Participation in leisure activities is significantly impacted following acquired brain injury (ABI). Despite this being a common community rehabilitation goal, re-engagement with leisure activities following ABI is poorly addressed within Australian community rehabilitation services, which often cater to a mixed-diagnostic group of both ABI and non-ABI clients. Objectives: To evaluate the feasibility and effect of a leisure reintegration group programme within a community rehabilitation service. Method: A single-site, pre- and post-test feasibility study was conducted. Three cohorts of a semi-structured leisure group programme were offered, each conducted over eight sessions within 4 weeks. The Nottingham Leisure Questionnaire (NLQ) and Leisure Satisfaction Measure (LSM) were used as primary outcome measures. Measures of acceptability, including adherence, and a post-intervention participant survey were also completed. Results: Of the 14 consenting participants, 9 completed all outcome measures. Mean change score for the NLQ was −3.63 (p = 0.11) and the LSM 4.25 (p = 0.46). The programme was well attended (79%), acceptable for ABI and non-ABI participants and able to be implemented within an existing community rehabilitation service. Conclusion: Providing a leisure reintegration group programme met an identified need, developed client and carer capacity and could be delivered within a community rehabilitation service for clients with mixed diagnoses including ABI. A larger trial is warranted to examine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of this intervention for people with ABI. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To synthesise the current best evidence on both pharmacological and non-pharmacological behaviour management interventions for adult patients in the acute hospital setting with traumatic brain injury (TBI) or post-traumatic amnesia (PTA). Data Sources: A comprehensive search of 10 electronic databases was completed. Study Selection: Systematic reviews (SRs) published in English before September 2018 were included. Initial search resulted in 4604 citations, 2916 for title and abstract screening with duplicates removed, and 2909 articles failed to meet the inclusion criteria leaving seven reviews for inclusion. Five reporting pharmacological management approaches, two reporting non-pharmacological management approaches, and one reporting both pharmacological and non-pharmacological management approaches. Data Extraction: Methodological quality was assessed independently by two reviewers using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme Tool for SRs. Data were extracted from the studies based on the recommendations of the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Methodology for JBI Umbrella Reviews. Data Synthesis: The SRs were of low-to-moderate quality overall. High-quality SRs were characterised by low numbers of studies and significant biases. The evidence relating to pharmacological interventions demonstrates low level and variable quality. The evidence relating to non-pharmacological interventions was limited and of low quality. Conclusions: The current evidence for the management of challenging behaviours in patients with acute TBI/PTA is generally equivocal, potentially reflecting the heterogeneity of patients with TBI and their clinical behaviours. More studies with rigorous methodologies are required to investigate the most suitable pharmacological and non-pharmacological behavioural interventions for the acute phase of TBI or PTA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Following traumatic brain and spinal cord injuries, maximising community participation leads to better physical and mental health outcomes. Objectives: To determine the effectiveness and health system resource use of a group intervention (CarFreeMe TI) on community participation in people with complex trauma injuries. Method: Randomised crossover trial of 54 participants, recruited from rehabilitation services in Adelaide, Australia. Inclusion criteria is a trauma injury, unable to return to full driving, aged over 18 years of age, adequate cognition/behavioural/communication abilities to participate in sessions and mobile. Exclusion criterion is living in setting where alternative transport is provided. Participants will be randomly assigned on a 1:1 allocation basis, to receiving Phase 1 CarFreeMe TI-group-based intervention or Phase 2 information related to transport options. Then, crossover to Phase 1 or 2 will occur. Primary outcome measure is community participation using a Global Positioning System. Secondary outcome measures include Community Mobility Self-efficacy Scale; CarFreeMe TI Transport Questionnaire, AQOL, EQ-5D-5L; Carer's Community Mobility Self-efficacy Scale and Modified Carer Strain Index for carers of participants. Outcome assessors will be blinded to group allocation. All analyses will be on an intention to treat basis with difference in community participation between the groups determined via a GLM ANOVA and the significance between groups on other measures using independent sample t -tests. It is hypothesised that the community mobility intervention (CarFreeMeTI) will result in increased community participation. Discussion: The results will provide proof of concept information on the feasibility and inform allocation of resources for people with complex trauma injuries. Trial registration: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Register (ANZCTR): ACTRN12616001254482. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]