Survivors of brain injury through the eyes of the public: A systematic review

Abstract

Background: It is known that knowledge and attitudes are important in determining whether society stigmatize and discriminate against specific groups. However, there has been no systematic review of the literature measuring these factors towards acquired brain injury (ABI).

Objective: This study aimed to systematically evaluate the literature measuring the public’s (1) knowledge of ABI and (2) attitudes towards survivors.

Methods: Four databases were searched between December 2011 and March 2012. Studies meeting the selection criteria were included and a manual search of studies’ reference lists undertaken to identify any remaining. The quality of studies was assessed using an adapted tool.

Results: Twenty studies were reviewed, with quality assessment ratings ranging from 47.83–91.3%. The public lacked awareness of some post-injury symptoms. Misconceptions concerning recovery, memory difficulties and vulnerability to second injuries were also commonly endorsed. The public demonstrated more negative attitudes towards survivors of ABI than those with other injuries, particularly if they deemed the individual responsible for their ABI.

Conclusions: Survivors of ABI are vulnerable to stigma and discrimination. It is therefore essential that Government and media campaigns prioritize educating the public about ABI and promote the inclusion of survivors.

• Attitude
• brain injury
• knowledge
• prejudice
• public
• stigma

Notes

¹The findings of sub-groups that were not members of the general public were not included or evaluated in the review.

²Studies explicitly referring to knowledge of stroke symptoms were excluded on the basis that recent media campaigns have aimed to educate the public about stroke symptoms, to encourage quick responses in such situations (e.g. ACT F.A.S.T campaign [63]). Studies evaluating the effectiveness of such campaigns were considered irrelevant to the research questions.

³Although authors identified individuals attending brain injury rehabilitation centres as general members of the public, it was thought that these individuals would have easy access to information regarding brain injury and an enhanced motivation to learn about ABI if they were visiting a friend of family member in the centre. The knowledge and attitudes of this group was therefore considered irrelevant to the research questions.

⁴Eleven of the studies failed to identify the sampling method used. therefore sampling methods were determined on the basis of the information provided.