Clinical and cost effectiveness of memory rehabilitation following traumatic brain injury: a pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial

Therapeutic groups run for community-dwelling people with acquired brain injury: a scoping review

PURPOSE

Therapeutic group interventions are commonly provided in acquired brain injury (ABI) inpatient rehabilitation settings, but little is known about the extent of therapeutic groups run for community-dwellers with ABI. This paper seeks to review current literature concerning the nature of therapeutic groups run for community-dwellers with ABI and the involvement of occupational therapists.

MATERIALS & METHODS

A scoping review was conducted with systematic searching of relevant databases guided by Arksey and O'Malley's framework. Studies were included if they reported on therapeutic groups for community-dwellers with ABI. Articles were collated and summarised with key findings presented in narrative form with accompanying tables.

RESULTS

Seventy articles met inclusion. Groups are used as therapeutic change agents for community-dwellers with ABI and target a diverse range of participation barriers. Participants valued group programs that established safe environments, a sense of belonging, growth opportunities and social connections. Group accessibility needs to be improved, with better funding avenues available for service providers, as well as greater consumer involvement in group design and facilitation.

CONCLUSIONS

Groups are a valuable therapeutic modality supporting community-dwellers with ABI. Further research is warranted into the use of groups by occupational therapists working with community-dwellers with ABI.

INCOG 2.0 Guidelines for Cognitive Rehabilitation Following Traumatic Brain Injury, Part V: Memory

INTRODUCTION

Memory impairments affecting encoding, acquisition, and retrieval of information after moderate-to-severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) have debilitating and enduring functional consequences. The interventional research reviewed primarily focused on mild to severe memory impairments in episodic and prospective memory. As memory is a common focus of cognitive rehabilitation, clinicians should understand and use the latest evidence. Therefore, the INCOG ("International Cognitive") 2014 clinical practice guidelines were updated.

METHODS

An expert panel of clinicians/researchers reviewed evidence published since 2014 and developed updated recommendations for intervention for memory impairments post-TBI, a decision-making algorithm, and an audit tool for review of clinical practice.

RESULTS

The interventional research approaches for episodic and prospective memory from 2014 are synthesized into 8 recommendations (6 updated and 2 new). Six recommendations are based on level A evidence and 2 on level B. In summary, they include the efficacy of choosing individual or multiple internal compensatory strategies, which can be delivered in a structured or individualized program. Of the external compensatory strategies, which should be the primary strategy for severe memory impairment, electronic reminder systems such as smartphone technology are preferred, with technological advances increasing their viability over traditional systems. Furthermore, microprompting personal digital assistant technology is recommended to cue completion of complex tasks. Memory strategies should be taught using instruction that considers the individual's functional and contextual needs while constraining errors. Memory rehabilitation programs can be delivered in an individualized or mixed format using group instruction. Computer cognitive training should be conducted with therapist guidance. Limited evidence exists to suggest that acetylcholinesterase inhibitors improve memory, so trials should include measures to assess impact. The use of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is not recommended for memory rehabilitation.

CONCLUSION

These recommendations for memory rehabilitation post-TBI reflect the current evidence and highlight the limitations of group instruction with heterogeneous populations of TBI. Further research is needed on the role of medications and tDCS to enhance memory.

Value of Nonpharmacological Interventions for People With an Acquired Brain Injury: A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations

OBJECTIVES

Acquired brain injury (ABI) has long-lasting effects, and patients and their families require continued care and support, often for the rest of their lives. For many individuals living with an ABI disorder, nonpharmacological rehabilitation treatment care has become increasingly important care component and relevant for informed healthcare decision making. Our study aimed to appraise economic evidence on the cost-effectiveness of nonpharmacological interventions for individuals living with an ABI.

METHODS

This systematic review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020187469), and a protocol article was subject to peer review. Searches were conducted across several databases for articles published from inception to 2021. Study quality was assessed according the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards checklist and Population, Intervention, Control, and Outcomes criteria.

RESULTS

Of the 3772 articles reviewed 41 publications met the inclusion criteria. There was a considerable heterogeneity in methodological approaches, target populations, study time frames, and perspectives and comparators used. Keeping these issues in mind, we find that 4 multidisciplinary interventions studies concluded that fast-track specialized services were cheaper and more cost-effective than usual care, with cost savings ranging from £253 to £6063. In 3 neuropsychological studies, findings suggested that meditated therapy was more effective and saved money than usual care. In 4 early supported discharge studies, interventions were dominant over usual care, with cost savings ranging from £142 to £1760.

CONCLUSIONS

The cost-effectiveness evidence of different nonpharmacological rehabilitation treatments is scant. More robust evidence is needed to determine the value of these and other interventions across the ABI care pathway.

What is known about the cost-effectiveness of neuropsychological interventions for individuals with acquired brain injury? A scoping review

The aim of this scoping review was to examine the literature related to economic evaluations of neuropsychological rehabilitation in individuals with acquired brain injury (ABI). PsychINFO, Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane and CINHAL databases were searched in accordance with formal scoping review methodology. Studies were included if published between 1995 and 2019 with a study population of adults aged 18 years or more with any ABI aetiology and there was reported data on resource use, costs or comparative economic analyses as part of an outcome study for rehabilitation interventions. Case studies and trial protocols were excluded. Of 3575 records screened, 30 articles were identified as meeting the inclusion criteria. The majority of studies documented cost savings from provision of various models of multidisciplinary inpatient or outpatient rehabilitation. However, these benefits were estimated without a control group. Eight studies included a cost-effectiveness analysis, and in three, the intervention was reported to be cost-effective compared to the control, one of which saved $9,654 per treated patient. Overall, few eligible studies were identified. Those that included a cost-effectiveness analysis yielded mixed evidence for interventions to be considered cost-effective for ABI. Recommendations for how to incorporate cost-effectiveness analyses into intervention studies are discussed.

Therapist competence and clinical outcome in the rehabilitation of memory following traumatic brain injury trial

Objectives: Therapist competencies when delivering an intervention can impact clinical outcomes. However, the relationship between competence and outcome in the context of memory rehabilitation has not previously been investigated. We aimed to evaluate whether therapist competencies in delivering a group-based memory rehabilitation intervention, as part of a randomized-controlled trial, was associated with changes in clinical outcome in the participants with traumatic brain injury.Method: Outcome data on the Everyday Memory Questionnaire (EMQ) and Goal Attainment Scaling (GAS) were obtained for 24 participants of the memory rehabilitation trial. Video recordings of intervention sessions delivered by six therapists were coded using a checklist designed to evaluate therapist competence in group facilitation.Results: Therapists demonstrated consistently high levels of competency in facilitating the memory group. Correlational analyses showed that there was a non-significant weak association between EMQ and therapist competence (r = .28, p = .18), and between GAS and therapist competence for short- and long-term goals (r = -.33, p = .12 and r = -.24, p = .25, respectively).Conclusions: We found no significant association between competence and outcome in this memory rehabilitation trial. This may reflect insufficient variability in therapist competence and/or the nature of the clinical outcome measures used. Further research is needed to understand competence-outcome relationships in cognitive rehabilitation.

Neuropsychological rehabilitation interventions for people with an acquired brain injury. A protocol for a systematic review of economic evaluation

Background: New emerging evidence has demonstrated the need for effective interventions to help people living with an acquired brain injury (ABI). Evidence on cost-effectiveness, which can help inform use of limited resources, is scarce in this area and therefore the purpose of this systematic review is to critically appraise and consolidate the current evidence on economic evaluations of ABI rehabilitation interventions. Methods: Systematic review methodology will be applied to identify, select and extract data from published economic evaluation studies (trial-based, non-trial based, simulation-based, decision model and trial-based model economic evaluations) of ABI treatment interventions in adults. A systematic literature search will be conducted on the following electronic databases: EMBASE, Econlit, CINAHL, Medline, the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database and PsyclNFO. This review will only include cost-effectiveness analysis studies (e.g., cost per life year gained), cost-benefit and cost minimisation analyses in which the designs were randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-RCT studies, cost-utility analyses (e.g., cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained or cost per disability-adjusted life year averted), cohort studies, and modelling studies. Only studies that were published in the english language, associated with adults who have an ABI will be included. There will be no restrictions on perspective, sample size, country, follow-up duration or setting. The search strategy terms will include the following: acquired brain injury, brain*; cost*; or cost-benefit analysis*. Following data extraction, a narrative summary and tables will be used to summarize the characteristics and results of included studies. Discussion: The findings from this review will be beneficial to health policy decision makers when examining the evidence of economic evaluations in this field. In addition, it is anticipated that this review will identify gaps in the current economic literature to inform future-related research. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42020187469 (25 th June 2020).

Neuropsychological rehabilitation interventions for people with an acquired brain injury and their caregivers. A protocol for a systematic review of economic evaluation

Background: New emerging evidence has demonstrated the need for effective interventions to help people living with an acquired brain injury (ABI). Evidence on cost-effectiveness, which can help inform use of limited resources, is scarce in this area and therefore the purpose of this systematic review is to critically appraise and consolidate the current evidence on economic evaluations of ABI rehabilitation interventions. Methods: Systematic review methodology will be applied to identify, select and extract data from published economic evaluation studies (trial-based, non-trial based, simulation-based, decision model and trial-based model economic evaluations) of ABI treatment interventions in adults. A systematic literature search will be conducted on the following electronic databases: EMBASE, Econlit, CINAHL, Medline, Econlit, the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database and PsyclNFO. This review will only include cost-effectiveness analysis studies (e.g., cost per life year gained), cost-benefit and cost minimisation analyses in which the designs were randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-RCT studies, cost-utility analyses (e.g., cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained or cost per disability-adjusted life year averted), cohort studies, and modeling studies. Only studies that were published in English, associated with adults who have an ABI will be included. There will be no restrictions on perspective, sample size, country, follow-up duration or setting. The search strategy terms will include the following: acquired brain injury, brain*; cost*; or cost-benefit analysis*. Following data extraction, a narrative summary and tables will be used to summarize the characteristics and results of included studies. Discussion: The findings from this review will be beneficial to health policy decision makers when examining the evidence of economic evaluations in this field. In addition, it is anticipated that this review will identify gaps in the current economic literature to inform future-related research. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42020187469 (25 th June 2020).

Memory improvement in multiple sclerosis after an extensive cognitive rehabilitation program in groups with a multicenter double-blind randomized trial

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to determine the effectiveness of an extended cognitive rehabilitation program in group's sessions in multiple sclerosis.

DESIGN

Double-blind multicenter randomized trial.

PARTICIPANTS

People with multiple sclerosis of 18 to 60 years, Expanded Disability Status Scale ⩽6.0, mild to moderate cognitive impairment.

INTERVENTIONS

They were randomized into cognitive rehabilitation program (ProCog-SEP) or in a placebo program. ProCog-SEP comprises 13 group's sessions over 6 months and includes psychoeducational advices and cognitive exercises. Placebo program included non-cognitive exercises. No strategy and no cognitive advice were provided.

MAIN MEASURES

The primary endpoint was the percentage of verbal memory learning measured by the Selective Reminding Test. A comprehensive neuropsychological assessment is carried out before and after interventions by a neuropsychologist blinded to intervention. Effectiveness of the ProCog-SEP versus Placebo has been verified using linear regression models.

RESULTS

In total, 128 participants were randomized and 110 were included in the study after planning session in groups; 101 completed this trial (77.2% females); mean age: 46.1 years (±9.6); disease duration: 11.8 years (±7.5). ProCog-SEP was more effective in increasing in learning index (9.21 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.43, 16.99); p = 0.02) and in working memory on manipulation (0.63 (95% CI: 0.17, 1.09); p = 0.01), and updating capacities (-1.1 (95% CI: -2.13, -0.06); p = 0.04). No difference was observed for other neuropsychological outcomes. Regarding quality of life outcomes, no change was observed between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

These findings suggest that ProCog-SEP could improve verbal learning abilities and working memory in people with multiple sclerosis. These improvements were observed with 13 group sessions over 6 months.

A group memory rehabilitation programme for people with traumatic brain injuries: the ReMemBrIn RCT

BACKGROUND

People with traumatic brain injuries (TBIs) commonly report memory impairments. These are persistent, debilitating and reduce quality of life, but patients do not routinely receive memory rehabilitation after discharge from hospital.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a group memory rehabilitation programme for people with TBI.

DESIGN

Multicentre, pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial. Qualitative and health economic evaluations were also undertaken.

SETTING

Community settings in nine sites in England.

PARTICIPANTS

Participants were aged 18-69 years, had undergone a TBI > 3 months prior to recruitment, reported memory problems, were able to travel to a site to attend group sessions, could communicate in English and gave informed consent.

RANDOMISATION AND BLINDING

Clusters of four to six participants were randomised to the memory rehabilitation arm or the usual-care arm on a 1 : 1 ratio. Randomisation was based on a computer-generated pseudo-random code using random permuted blocks of randomly varying size, stratified by study site. Participants and therapists were aware of the treatment allocation whereas outcome assessors were blinded.

INTERVENTIONS

In the memory rehabilitation arm 10 weekly sessions of a manualised memory rehabilitation programme were provided in addition to usual care. Participants were taught restitution strategies to retrain impaired memory functions and compensation strategies to enable them to cope with memory problems. The usual-care arm received usual care only.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Outcomes were assessed at 6 and 12 months after randomisation. Primary outcome: patient-completed Everyday Memory Questionnaire - patient version (EMQ-p) at 6 months' follow-up. Secondary outcomes: Rivermead Behavioural Memory Test - third edition (RBMT-3), General Health Questionnaire 30-item version, European Brain Injury Questionnaire, Everyday Memory Questionnaire - relative version and individual goal attainment. Costs (based on a UK NHS and Personal Social Services perspective) were collected using a service use questionnaire, with the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version, used to derive quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). A Markov model was developed to explore cost-effectiveness at 5 and 10 years, with a 3.5% discount applied.

RESULTS

We randomised 328 participants (memory rehabilitation, n = 171; usual care, n = 157), with 129 in the memory rehabilitation arm and 122 in the usual-care arm included in the primary analysis. We found no clinically important difference on the EMQ-p between the two arms at 6 months' follow-up (adjusted difference in mean scores -2.1, 95% confidence interval -6.7 to 2.5; p = 0.37). For secondary outcomes, differences favouring the memory rehabilitation arm were observed at 6 months' follow-up for the RBMT-3 and goal attainment, but remained only for goal attainment at 12 months' follow-up. There were no differences between arms in mood or quality of life. The qualitative results suggested positive experiences of participating in the trial and of attending the groups. Participants reported that memory rehabilitation was not routinely accessible in usual care. The primary health economics outcome at 12 months found memory rehabilitation to be £26.89 cheaper than usual care but less effective, with an incremental QALY loss of 0.007. Differences in costs and effects were not statistically significant and non-parametric bootstrapping demonstrated considerable uncertainty in these findings. No safety concerns were raised and no deaths were reported.

LIMITATIONS

As a pragmatic trial, we had broad inclusion criteria and, therefore, there was considerable heterogeneity within the sample. The study was not powered to perform further subgroup analyses. Participants and therapists could not be blinded to treatment allocation.

CONCLUSIONS

The group memory rehabilitation delivered in this trial is very unlikely to lead to clinical benefits or to be a cost-effective treatment for people with TBI in the community. Future studies should examine the selection of participants who may benefit most from memory rehabilitation.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN65792154.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 23, No. 16. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.