Abstract
Background: To evaluate the evidence for psychological treatments for persistent postconcussion symptoms following mild traumatic brain injury. There is scant evidence from limited clinical trials to direct the psychological management of persistent symptoms.Method: Databases were searched for studies that: (1) included adults (≥ aged 16 years) following injury (from any cause); (2) tested interventions for postconcussion symptoms after the acute injury period (e.g., after hospital discharge), but prior to established chronicity (e.g., not more than 12 months post-injury), and; (3) applied one of five broadly-defined psychological interventions (cognitive behavioural therapy, counselling, psychoeducation, education/reassurance, or mindfulness). All controlled trials were eligible for inclusion.Results: Of the 20,945 articles identified, 10 underwent risk-of-bias analysis by two independent reviewers. Nine were retained for data extraction. They used: cognitive behaviour therapy (n = 2), counselling (n = 2), psychoeducation (n = 2), education/reassurance (n = 2), or compared cognitive behaviour therapy to counselling (n = 1).Conclusion: Counselling or cognitive behaviour therapy have the most support but the evidence remains limited. We encourage further randomized controlled trials of early interventions in samples at risk for persistent symptoms, including closer study of psychological risk-factors and the ‘active’ ingredient. To advance the field, future trials must include additional methodological controls and improved reporting.
Persistent symptoms following mild traumatic brain injury can be disabling and psychological management for rehabilitation may be proposed.
However, Controlled trials show that while some psychological approaches hold promise for this purpose, there are significant gaps in the underpinning evidence.
The best results are seen when postconcussion programs use counselling or cognitive behaviour therapy and are targetted for people with an increased risk of persistent symptoms.
Implications for rehabilitation
Notes
Acknowledgements
K.A.S. contributed to initiating and designing the review; analysis and interpretation of data; writing the paper and making amendments to draft articles following review; final approval of version to be published. S-A.K. contributed to analysis and interpreting the data; writing the paper and making amendments to draft articles following review; final approval of the version to be published. H.B. and S.L.E. contributed to designing the review; analysis and interpretation of data; reviewing draft article critically for important intellectual content and final approval of the version to be published. S.M. contributed to designing the review; reviewing draft article critically for important intellectual content and final approval of the version to be published. K.R. and C.H. contributed to analysis and interpretation of data, reviewing draft article critically for important intellectual content and final approval of the version to be published.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Notes
1 Data from the twelve papers which were excluded based on publication type were not extracted.
3 The focus for this review was on those participants who had sustained an injury within the previous 12 months.
4 The term “rehabilitation specialist” was not formally defined.
5 AMSTAR ratings (http://www.amstar.ca/) are a product of a formal method that is designed to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews.