Clinical and cost effectiveness of memory rehabilitation following traumatic brain injury: a pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial
Objective: To evaluate the clinical and cost effectiveness of a group-based memory rehabilitation programme for people with traumatic brain injury. Design: Multicentre, pragmatic, observer-blinded, randomized controlled trial in England. Setting: Community. Participants: People with memory problems...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Clinical rehabilitation 2019-07, Vol.33 (7), p.1171-1184 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 1184 |
---|---|
container_issue | 7 |
container_start_page | 1171 |
container_title | Clinical rehabilitation |
container_volume | 33 |
creator | das Nair, Roshan Bradshaw, Lucy E Day, Florence EC Drummond, Avril Harris, Shaun RS Fitzsimmons, Deborah Montgomery, Alan A Newby, Gavin Sackley, Catherine Lincoln, Nadina B |
description | Objective:
To evaluate the clinical and cost effectiveness of a group-based memory rehabilitation programme for people with traumatic brain injury.
Design:
Multicentre, pragmatic, observer-blinded, randomized controlled trial in England.
Setting:
Community.
Participants:
People with memory problems following traumatic brain injury, aged 18–69 years, able to travel to group sessions, communicate in English, and give consent.
Interventions:
A total of 10 weekly group sessions of manualized memory rehabilitation plus usual care (intervention) vs. usual care alone (control).
Main measures:
The primary outcome was the patient-reported Everyday Memory Questionnaire (EMQ-p) at six months post randomization. Secondary outcomes were assessed at 6 and 12 months post randomization.
Results:
We randomized 328 participants. There were no clinically important differences in the primary outcome between arms at six-month follow-up (mean EMQ-p score: 38.8 (SD 26.1) in intervention and 44.1 (SD 24.6) in control arms, adjusted difference in means: –2.1, 95% confidence interval (CI): –6.7 to 2.5, p = 0.37) or 12-month follow-up. Objectively assessed memory ability favoured the memory rehabilitation arm at the 6-month, but not at the 12-month outcome. There were no between-arm differences in mood, experience of brain injury, or relative/friend assessment of patient’s everyday memory outcomes, but goal attainment scores favoured the memory rehabilitation arm at both outcome time points. Health economic analyses suggested that the intervention was unlikely to be cost effective. No safety concerns were raised.
Conclusion:
This memory rehabilitation programme did not lead to reduced forgetting in daily life for a heterogeneous sample of people with traumatic brain injury. Further research will need to examine who benefits most from such interventions. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1177/0269215519840069 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_6585159</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sage_id>10.1177_0269215519840069</sage_id><sourcerecordid>2242736888</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c462t-85063116536db2a83f08b1b93fed47c1a4374acfbb22a931fe5f83daf733d1a33</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1UctqHDEQFMEh3ji--xQEPk-ix8xI40MgLHmBIZfkLHo00lqLRlpLGofNJ-Sro2X9SAI5ddNVXVVQCF1Q8oZSId4S1g-Mdh0dZEtIPzxDK9oK0RAp-AlaHeDmgJ-ilzlvCSGStfQFOuVkEIIPcoV-rb0LToPHECasYy7YWGt0cXcmmJxxtHg2c0x7nMwNjM67AsXFgG30Pv5wYYNLgmWuR43HBC5gF7ZL2l9hwLsEmyOi_ZKLSThVmzi7n-ZgFkqqInUtyYF_hZ5b8Nmc388z9P3jh2_rz831109f1u-vG932rDSyIz2ntO94P40MJLdEjnQcuDVTKzSFlosWtB1HxmDg1JrOSj6BFZxPFDg_Q--OurtlnM2kTY0BXu2SmyHtVQSn_kaCu1GbeKf6Tna0G6rA5b1AireLyUVt45JCzawYa5ngvZSyssiRpVPMORn76ECJOrSn_m2vvrz-M9njw0NdldAcCRk25sn1v4K_ASTSppw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2242736888</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Clinical and cost effectiveness of memory rehabilitation following traumatic brain injury: a pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</source><source>SAGE Complete A-Z List</source><creator>das Nair, Roshan ; Bradshaw, Lucy E ; Day, Florence EC ; Drummond, Avril ; Harris, Shaun RS ; Fitzsimmons, Deborah ; Montgomery, Alan A ; Newby, Gavin ; Sackley, Catherine ; Lincoln, Nadina B</creator><creatorcontrib>das Nair, Roshan ; Bradshaw, Lucy E ; Day, Florence EC ; Drummond, Avril ; Harris, Shaun RS ; Fitzsimmons, Deborah ; Montgomery, Alan A ; Newby, Gavin ; Sackley, Catherine ; Lincoln, Nadina B</creatorcontrib><description>Objective:
To evaluate the clinical and cost effectiveness of a group-based memory rehabilitation programme for people with traumatic brain injury.
Design:
Multicentre, pragmatic, observer-blinded, randomized controlled trial in England.
Setting:
Community.
Participants:
People with memory problems following traumatic brain injury, aged 18–69 years, able to travel to group sessions, communicate in English, and give consent.
Interventions:
A total of 10 weekly group sessions of manualized memory rehabilitation plus usual care (intervention) vs. usual care alone (control).
Main measures:
The primary outcome was the patient-reported Everyday Memory Questionnaire (EMQ-p) at six months post randomization. Secondary outcomes were assessed at 6 and 12 months post randomization.
Results:
We randomized 328 participants. There were no clinically important differences in the primary outcome between arms at six-month follow-up (mean EMQ-p score: 38.8 (SD 26.1) in intervention and 44.1 (SD 24.6) in control arms, adjusted difference in means: –2.1, 95% confidence interval (CI): –6.7 to 2.5, p = 0.37) or 12-month follow-up. Objectively assessed memory ability favoured the memory rehabilitation arm at the 6-month, but not at the 12-month outcome. There were no between-arm differences in mood, experience of brain injury, or relative/friend assessment of patient’s everyday memory outcomes, but goal attainment scores favoured the memory rehabilitation arm at both outcome time points. Health economic analyses suggested that the intervention was unlikely to be cost effective. No safety concerns were raised.
Conclusion:
This memory rehabilitation programme did not lead to reduced forgetting in daily life for a heterogeneous sample of people with traumatic brain injury. Further research will need to examine who benefits most from such interventions.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0269-2155</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1477-0873</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1177/0269215519840069</identifier><identifier>PMID: 30977398</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>London, England: SAGE Publications</publisher><subject>Activities of daily living ; Adolescent ; Adult ; Aged ; Brain injured people ; Brain Injuries, Traumatic - economics ; Brain Injuries, Traumatic - psychology ; Brain Injuries, Traumatic - rehabilitation ; Clinical trials ; Confidence intervals ; Cost analysis ; Cost-Benefit Analysis ; England ; Evaluative Studies ; Everyday memory ; Evidence-based medicine ; Female ; Humans ; Intervention ; Male ; Memory ; Memory Disorders - economics ; Memory Disorders - etiology ; Memory Disorders - rehabilitation ; Middle Aged ; Psychotherapy, Group - economics ; Psychotherapy, Group - methods ; Quality of Life ; Questionnaires ; Rehabilitation ; Traumatic brain injury ; Treatment Outcome ; Young Adult</subject><ispartof>Clinical rehabilitation, 2019-07, Vol.33 (7), p.1171-1184</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2019</rights><rights>The Author(s) 2019 2019 SAGE Publications</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c462t-85063116536db2a83f08b1b93fed47c1a4374acfbb22a931fe5f83daf733d1a33</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c462t-85063116536db2a83f08b1b93fed47c1a4374acfbb22a931fe5f83daf733d1a33</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-8143-7893</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0269215519840069$$EPDF$$P50$$Gsage$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0269215519840069$$EHTML$$P50$$Gsage$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,780,784,885,21818,27923,27924,30998,43620,43621</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30977398$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>das Nair, Roshan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bradshaw, Lucy E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Day, Florence EC</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Drummond, Avril</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Harris, Shaun RS</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fitzsimmons, Deborah</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Montgomery, Alan A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Newby, Gavin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sackley, Catherine</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lincoln, Nadina B</creatorcontrib><title>Clinical and cost effectiveness of memory rehabilitation following traumatic brain injury: a pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial</title><title>Clinical rehabilitation</title><addtitle>Clin Rehabil</addtitle><description>Objective:
To evaluate the clinical and cost effectiveness of a group-based memory rehabilitation programme for people with traumatic brain injury.
Design:
Multicentre, pragmatic, observer-blinded, randomized controlled trial in England.
Setting:
Community.
Participants:
People with memory problems following traumatic brain injury, aged 18–69 years, able to travel to group sessions, communicate in English, and give consent.
Interventions:
A total of 10 weekly group sessions of manualized memory rehabilitation plus usual care (intervention) vs. usual care alone (control).
Main measures:
The primary outcome was the patient-reported Everyday Memory Questionnaire (EMQ-p) at six months post randomization. Secondary outcomes were assessed at 6 and 12 months post randomization.
Results:
We randomized 328 participants. There were no clinically important differences in the primary outcome between arms at six-month follow-up (mean EMQ-p score: 38.8 (SD 26.1) in intervention and 44.1 (SD 24.6) in control arms, adjusted difference in means: –2.1, 95% confidence interval (CI): –6.7 to 2.5, p = 0.37) or 12-month follow-up. Objectively assessed memory ability favoured the memory rehabilitation arm at the 6-month, but not at the 12-month outcome. There were no between-arm differences in mood, experience of brain injury, or relative/friend assessment of patient’s everyday memory outcomes, but goal attainment scores favoured the memory rehabilitation arm at both outcome time points. Health economic analyses suggested that the intervention was unlikely to be cost effective. No safety concerns were raised.
Conclusion:
This memory rehabilitation programme did not lead to reduced forgetting in daily life for a heterogeneous sample of people with traumatic brain injury. Further research will need to examine who benefits most from such interventions.</description><subject>Activities of daily living</subject><subject>Adolescent</subject><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Brain injured people</subject><subject>Brain Injuries, Traumatic - economics</subject><subject>Brain Injuries, Traumatic - psychology</subject><subject>Brain Injuries, Traumatic - rehabilitation</subject><subject>Clinical trials</subject><subject>Confidence intervals</subject><subject>Cost analysis</subject><subject>Cost-Benefit Analysis</subject><subject>England</subject><subject>Evaluative Studies</subject><subject>Everyday memory</subject><subject>Evidence-based medicine</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Intervention</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Memory</subject><subject>Memory Disorders - economics</subject><subject>Memory Disorders - etiology</subject><subject>Memory Disorders - rehabilitation</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Psychotherapy, Group - economics</subject><subject>Psychotherapy, Group - methods</subject><subject>Quality of Life</subject><subject>Questionnaires</subject><subject>Rehabilitation</subject><subject>Traumatic brain injury</subject><subject>Treatment Outcome</subject><subject>Young Adult</subject><issn>0269-2155</issn><issn>1477-0873</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2019</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>AFRWT</sourceid><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>7QJ</sourceid><recordid>eNp1UctqHDEQFMEh3ji--xQEPk-ix8xI40MgLHmBIZfkLHo00lqLRlpLGofNJ-Sro2X9SAI5ddNVXVVQCF1Q8oZSId4S1g-Mdh0dZEtIPzxDK9oK0RAp-AlaHeDmgJ-ilzlvCSGStfQFOuVkEIIPcoV-rb0LToPHECasYy7YWGt0cXcmmJxxtHg2c0x7nMwNjM67AsXFgG30Pv5wYYNLgmWuR43HBC5gF7ZL2l9hwLsEmyOi_ZKLSThVmzi7n-ZgFkqqInUtyYF_hZ5b8Nmc388z9P3jh2_rz831109f1u-vG932rDSyIz2ntO94P40MJLdEjnQcuDVTKzSFlosWtB1HxmDg1JrOSj6BFZxPFDg_Q--OurtlnM2kTY0BXu2SmyHtVQSn_kaCu1GbeKf6Tna0G6rA5b1AireLyUVt45JCzawYa5ngvZSyssiRpVPMORn76ECJOrSn_m2vvrz-M9njw0NdldAcCRk25sn1v4K_ASTSppw</recordid><startdate>20190701</startdate><enddate>20190701</enddate><creator>das Nair, Roshan</creator><creator>Bradshaw, Lucy E</creator><creator>Day, Florence EC</creator><creator>Drummond, Avril</creator><creator>Harris, Shaun RS</creator><creator>Fitzsimmons, Deborah</creator><creator>Montgomery, Alan A</creator><creator>Newby, Gavin</creator><creator>Sackley, Catherine</creator><creator>Lincoln, Nadina B</creator><general>SAGE Publications</general><general>Sage Publications Ltd</general><scope>AFRWT</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QJ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>5PM</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8143-7893</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20190701</creationdate><title>Clinical and cost effectiveness of memory rehabilitation following traumatic brain injury: a pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial</title><author>das Nair, Roshan ; Bradshaw, Lucy E ; Day, Florence EC ; Drummond, Avril ; Harris, Shaun RS ; Fitzsimmons, Deborah ; Montgomery, Alan A ; Newby, Gavin ; Sackley, Catherine ; Lincoln, Nadina B</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c462t-85063116536db2a83f08b1b93fed47c1a4374acfbb22a931fe5f83daf733d1a33</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2019</creationdate><topic>Activities of daily living</topic><topic>Adolescent</topic><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Brain injured people</topic><topic>Brain Injuries, Traumatic - economics</topic><topic>Brain Injuries, Traumatic - psychology</topic><topic>Brain Injuries, Traumatic - rehabilitation</topic><topic>Clinical trials</topic><topic>Confidence intervals</topic><topic>Cost analysis</topic><topic>Cost-Benefit Analysis</topic><topic>England</topic><topic>Evaluative Studies</topic><topic>Everyday memory</topic><topic>Evidence-based medicine</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Intervention</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Memory</topic><topic>Memory Disorders - economics</topic><topic>Memory Disorders - etiology</topic><topic>Memory Disorders - rehabilitation</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Psychotherapy, Group - economics</topic><topic>Psychotherapy, Group - methods</topic><topic>Quality of Life</topic><topic>Questionnaires</topic><topic>Rehabilitation</topic><topic>Traumatic brain injury</topic><topic>Treatment Outcome</topic><topic>Young Adult</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>das Nair, Roshan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bradshaw, Lucy E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Day, Florence EC</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Drummond, Avril</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Harris, Shaun RS</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fitzsimmons, Deborah</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Montgomery, Alan A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Newby, Gavin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sackley, Catherine</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lincoln, Nadina B</creatorcontrib><collection>Sage Journals GOLD Open Access 2024</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Clinical rehabilitation</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>das Nair, Roshan</au><au>Bradshaw, Lucy E</au><au>Day, Florence EC</au><au>Drummond, Avril</au><au>Harris, Shaun RS</au><au>Fitzsimmons, Deborah</au><au>Montgomery, Alan A</au><au>Newby, Gavin</au><au>Sackley, Catherine</au><au>Lincoln, Nadina B</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Clinical and cost effectiveness of memory rehabilitation following traumatic brain injury: a pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial</atitle><jtitle>Clinical rehabilitation</jtitle><addtitle>Clin Rehabil</addtitle><date>2019-07-01</date><risdate>2019</risdate><volume>33</volume><issue>7</issue><spage>1171</spage><epage>1184</epage><pages>1171-1184</pages><issn>0269-2155</issn><eissn>1477-0873</eissn><abstract>Objective:
To evaluate the clinical and cost effectiveness of a group-based memory rehabilitation programme for people with traumatic brain injury.
Design:
Multicentre, pragmatic, observer-blinded, randomized controlled trial in England.
Setting:
Community.
Participants:
People with memory problems following traumatic brain injury, aged 18–69 years, able to travel to group sessions, communicate in English, and give consent.
Interventions:
A total of 10 weekly group sessions of manualized memory rehabilitation plus usual care (intervention) vs. usual care alone (control).
Main measures:
The primary outcome was the patient-reported Everyday Memory Questionnaire (EMQ-p) at six months post randomization. Secondary outcomes were assessed at 6 and 12 months post randomization.
Results:
We randomized 328 participants. There were no clinically important differences in the primary outcome between arms at six-month follow-up (mean EMQ-p score: 38.8 (SD 26.1) in intervention and 44.1 (SD 24.6) in control arms, adjusted difference in means: –2.1, 95% confidence interval (CI): –6.7 to 2.5, p = 0.37) or 12-month follow-up. Objectively assessed memory ability favoured the memory rehabilitation arm at the 6-month, but not at the 12-month outcome. There were no between-arm differences in mood, experience of brain injury, or relative/friend assessment of patient’s everyday memory outcomes, but goal attainment scores favoured the memory rehabilitation arm at both outcome time points. Health economic analyses suggested that the intervention was unlikely to be cost effective. No safety concerns were raised.
Conclusion:
This memory rehabilitation programme did not lead to reduced forgetting in daily life for a heterogeneous sample of people with traumatic brain injury. Further research will need to examine who benefits most from such interventions.</abstract><cop>London, England</cop><pub>SAGE Publications</pub><pmid>30977398</pmid><doi>10.1177/0269215519840069</doi><tpages>14</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8143-7893</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0269-2155 |
ispartof | Clinical rehabilitation, 2019-07, Vol.33 (7), p.1171-1184 |
issn | 0269-2155 1477-0873 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_6585159 |
source | MEDLINE; Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA); SAGE Complete A-Z List |
subjects | Activities of daily living Adolescent Adult Aged Brain injured people Brain Injuries, Traumatic - economics Brain Injuries, Traumatic - psychology Brain Injuries, Traumatic - rehabilitation Clinical trials Confidence intervals Cost analysis Cost-Benefit Analysis England Evaluative Studies Everyday memory Evidence-based medicine Female Humans Intervention Male Memory Memory Disorders - economics Memory Disorders - etiology Memory Disorders - rehabilitation Middle Aged Psychotherapy, Group - economics Psychotherapy, Group - methods Quality of Life Questionnaires Rehabilitation Traumatic brain injury Treatment Outcome Young Adult |
title | Clinical and cost effectiveness of memory rehabilitation following traumatic brain injury: a pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-12T02%3A53%3A21IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Clinical%20and%20cost%20effectiveness%20of%20memory%20rehabilitation%20following%20traumatic%20brain%20injury:%20a%20pragmatic%20cluster%20randomized%20controlled%20trial&rft.jtitle=Clinical%20rehabilitation&rft.au=das%20Nair,%20Roshan&rft.date=2019-07-01&rft.volume=33&rft.issue=7&rft.spage=1171&rft.epage=1184&rft.pages=1171-1184&rft.issn=0269-2155&rft.eissn=1477-0873&rft_id=info:doi/10.1177/0269215519840069&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E2242736888%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2242736888&rft_id=info:pmid/30977398&rft_sage_id=10.1177_0269215519840069&rfr_iscdi=true |