Twenty adults who had sustained severe head injury completed the Sickness Impact Profile questionnaire and the Leeds Scales of anxiety and depression five or more years after the injury. All but one of the subjects reported persistent problems, and all but eight were either unemployed or working in a reduced capacity. Patients' reports were supported by those of relatives. It is argued that both patients and relatives should be followed up regularly, for more than just the first year, and that the Sickness Impact Profile would serve this purpose well. The advantages and limitations of this instrument for clinical use are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
British Psychological Society.Psychology and physical disability in the National Health Service. Report of the Professional Affairs Board. Leicester: British Psychological Society, 1989.
2.
Brooks DN ed. Closed head injury: psychological, social and family consequences. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984.
3.
Thomsen IVLong-term psychosocial follow-up of patients with severe blunt head trauma [Abstracts]. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol1985; 7: 165.
4.
Fordyce DJ, Roueche JR, Prigatano GPEnhanced emotional reactions in chronic head trauma patients. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry1983; 46: 620-24.
5.
Livingston MG , Brooks DN, Bond MRThree months after severe head injury: psychiatric and social impact on relatives. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry1985; 48: 870-75.
6.
Bergner M., Bobbit RA, Pollard WE, Martin DP, Gilson BSThe Sickness Impact Profile: validation of a health status measure. Med Care1976; 14: 57-67.
7.
Bergner M., Bobbit RA, Carter WB, Gilson BSThe Sickness Impact Profile: development and final revision of a health status measure. Med Care1981; 19: 787-805.
8.
Klonoff PS, Snow WG, Costa LDQuality of life in patients two to four years after closed head injury. Neurosurgery1986; 19: 735-43.
9.
Temkin N., Mclean A., Dikmen S., Gale J., Bergner M., Almes MJDevelopment and evaluation of modifications to the Sickness Impact Profile for head injury. J Clin Epidemiol1988; 41: 47-57.
10.
Moore AD, Stambrook M., Peters LC, Cardoso ER, Kassum DALong-term multi-dimensional outcome following isolated traumatic brain injuries and traumatic brain injuries associated with multiple trauma. Brain Injury1990; 4: 379-89.
11.
Tyerman A., Humphrey M.Changes in self-concept following severe head injury. Int J Rehabil Res1984; 7: 11-23.
12.
McKinlay WW , Brooks DNMethodological problems in assessing psychosocial recovery following severe head injury. J Clin Neuropsychol1984; 6: 87-99.
13.
Kinsella G. , Moran C., Ford B., Ponsford J.Emotional disorder and its assessment within the severe head injured population. Psychol Med1988; 18: 57-63.
14.
Patrick DL, Sitampalam Y., Somerville SM, Carter WB, Bergner M.A cross-cultural comparison of health status values. Am J Public Health1985; 75: 1402-1407.
15.
Snaith RP, Bridge Awk, Hamilton M.The Leeds Scales for the self-assessment of anxiety and depression. Br J Psychiatry1976; 128: 156-65.
16.
Livingston MGAssessment of need for coordinated approach in families with victims of head injury. Br Med J1986; 293: 742-44.
17.
McMillan TM , Greenwood RJ, Morris JR, Brooks DN, Murphy L., Dunn G.An introduction to the concept of head injury case management with respect to the need for service provision. Clin Rehabil1988; 2: 319-22.
18.
The Euroqol Group. Euroqol - a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy1990; 16: 199-208.
19.
Wilde ED, Svanberg PONever mind the width- measure the quality. Clinical Psychology Forum1990; 30: 2-5.
20.
Reitan RM, Davison LAClinical neuropsychology: current status and applications. Washington DC: Winston and Sons, 1974.
21.
Katz MM, Lyerly SBMethods for measuring adjustment and social behaviour in the community. I. Rationale, description, discriminative validity and scale development. Psychol Rep1963; 13: 503-35.
22.
McDowell I., Newell C.Measuring health: a guide to rating scales and questionnaires. New York: Oxford University Press, 1987.
23.
Deyo RA, Inui TS, Leininger JD, Overman SSMeasuring functional outcomes in chronic disease: a comparison of traditional scales and self-administered health status questionnaires in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Med Care1983; 21: 180-92.
24.
Hunt SM, McKenna SP, McEwen J., Williams J., Papp E.The Nottingham Health Profile: subjective health status and medical consultations . Soc Sci Med1981; 15A: 221-29.
25.
Gurel L., Linn MW, Linn BSPhysical and mental impairment of function evaluation in the aged: the PAMIE scale. J Gerontol1972; 27: 83-90.
26.
Crewe NM, Athelstan GTFunctional assessment in vocational rehabilitation: a systematic approach to diagnosis and goal-setting. Arch Phys Med Rehabil1981; 62: 299-305.
27.
Kaplan RM, Bush JWHealth-related quality of life measurement for evaluation research and policy analysis. Health Psychol1982; 1: 61-80.
28.
Levin HS, High WM, Goethe KE et al. The neurobehavioural rating scale: assessment of the behavioural sequelae of head injury by the clinician. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry1987; 50: 183-93.
29.
Langner TSA twenty-two item screening score of psychiatric symptoms indicating impairment . J Health Hum Behav1962; 3: 269-76.
30.
Goldberg DPThe detection of psychiatric illness by questionnaire (Maudsley monograph no. 21). London: Oxford University Press, 1972.
31.
Read JL, Quinn RJ, Hoefer MAMeasuring overall health: an evaluation of three important approaches. J Chronic Dis1987; 40 (suppl 1): 7S-21S.
32.
Ware JE Jr, Johnston SA, Davies-Avery A., Brook RHConceptualization and measurement of health for adults in the Health Insurance Study: volume III, mental health. Santa Monica: Rand Corporation, 1979.
33.
The Sickness Impact Profile: a brief summary of its purpose, uses and administration . Seattle: University of Washington, Department of Health Services, 1978.
