Objective: To compile a minimum data set for the follow-up of traumatic brain injury patients from discharge from hospital to one year post injury to assess functioning and participation in the physical, cognitive and psychosocial domains, and in quality of life.
Design: Repeated questionnaire interviews by two observers to establish interobserver reliability of the measurement instruments at discharge and at one year post injury, as well as their sensitivity to change over time in traumatic brain injury patients.
Setting: Department of neurosurgery of an academic hospital, department of a rehabilitation centre, and at the patients' homes in the Netherlands.
Subjects: The study at discharge included 25 patients aged 18-50 years with a moderate to severe traumatic brain injury (Glasgow Coma Scale score 3-14), whereas the one year post injury study included 14 patients aged 19-51 years.
Main (outcome) measures: Physical domain: Barthel Index (BI), Functional Independence Measurement (FIM), Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS), GOS Extended (GOSE). Cognitive domain: Disability Rating Scale (DRS), Functional Assessment Measurement (FAM), Levels of Cognitive Functioning Scale (LCFS), Neurobehavioural Rating Scale (NRS). Psychosocial domain: Community Integration Questionnaire (CIQ), Employability Rating Scale (ERS), Frenchay Activity Index (FAI), Multi Health Locus of Control (MHLC), Rehabilitation Activities Profile (RAP), Social Support List (SSL), Supervision Rating Scale (SRS), Wimbledon Self Reporting Rating Scale (WSRS). Quality of life: Coop/Wonca Charts (Coop), Rand SF-36 (Rand-36), Sickness Impact Profile-68 (SIP-68).
Results: At both discharge and at one year post injury, in the physical domainthe FIM showed excellent squared weighted kappa (SWK ranging from 0.75 to 0.80), and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC ranging from 0.75 to 0.92), and a relatively small standard error of measurement (SEM 3.22) and smallest detectable difference (SDD 8.92). In the cognitive domain the FAM and the NRS showed excellent SWK, and ICC, and a relatively small SEM and SDD. In the psychosocial domainthe FAI showed excellent SWK (0.89), and ICC (0.87), and a relatively small SEM (2.64) and SDD (7.31). For quality of life, at both discharge and at one year post injury the SIP-68 and the Coop showed excellent SWK (0.87), and ICC (0.89), and a relatively small SEM (3.79) and SDD (10.51). At both time points SWK and ICC ranged from 0.80 to 0.89, SEM ranged from 1.47 to 1.98, and the SDD was 4.07.
Conclusions: An example of a reliable minimum data set that is also able to detect changes over time is: the FIM, the FAM and the Coop for the early stages in recovery, extended with the NRS, the FAI, and the SIP-68 later in recovery, thereby covering all relevant domains after traumatic brain injury.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Sahgal V, Heinemann A. Recovery of function during inpatient rehabilitation for moderate traumatic brain injury. Scand J Rehabil Med1989; 21: 71-79.
2.
Dawson DR, Chipman M. The disablement experienced by traumatically brain-injured adults living in the community. Brain Inj1995; 9: 339-353.
3.
Greenspan AI, Wrigley JM, Kresnow M et al. Factors influencing failure to return to work due to traumatic brain injury. Brain Inj1996; 10: 207-218.
4.
Ponsford JL, Olver JH, Curran C et al. Prediction of employment status 2 years after traumatic brain injury. Brain Inj1995; 9: 11-20.
5.
Hall KM, Karzmark P, Stevens M et al. Family stressors in traumatic brain injury: a two-year follow-up. Arch Phys Med Rehabil1994; 75: 876-884.
6.
McLean AJr, Dikmen SS, Temkin NR. Psychosocial recovery after head injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil1993; 74: 1041-1046.
7.
Johnston MV, Hall K, Carnevale G et al. Functional assessment and outcome in traumatic brain injury rehabilitation. In Horn LJ, Zasler ND eds. Medical rehabilitation of traumatic brain injury. Hanley & Belfus, 1996: 197-226.
8.
Johnston MV, Hall KM. Outcomes evaluation in TBI Rehabilitation. Part I: overview and system principles. Arch Phys Med Rehabil1994; 75: SC1-SC9; discussion SC27-28.
9.
Marshall LF, Gautille T, Klaiber M et al. The outcome of severe closed head injury. J Neurosurg1991; 75: S28-S36.
10.
Teasdale GM, Braakman R, Cohadon F et al. The European Brain Injury Consortium. Nemo solus stais sapit: nobody knows enough alone. Acta Neurochir1997; 139: 797-803.
11.
Maas AIR, Dearden M, Teasdale GM et al. EBIC guidelines for management of severe head injury in adults. Acta Neurochir1997; 139: 286-294.
12.
Novack TA, Bush BA, Meythaler JM et al. Outcome after traumatic brain injury: pathway analysis of contributions from premorbid, injury severity, and recovery variables. Arch Phys Med Rehabil2001; 82: 300-305.
13.
Dikmen SS, Machamer MA, Powell JM et al. Outcome 3 to 5 years after moderate to severe traumatic brain injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil2003; 84: 1449-1457.
14.
Bushnik T, Hanks RA, Kreutzer J et al. Etiology of traumatic brain injury: characterization of differential outcomes up to 1 year postinjury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil2003; 84: 255-262.
15.
Hammond FM, Grattan KD, Sasser H et al. Five years after traumatic brain injury: a study of individual outcomes and predictors of change in function. NeuroRehabilitation2004, 19: 25-35.
16.
Turner-Stokes L. Outcome measurement in brain injury rehabilitation-towards a common language. Clin Rehabil1991; 13: 273-275.
17.
Van Baalen B, Odding E, Maas AIR et al. Traumatic brain injury: classification of initial severity and determination of functional outcome. Disabil Rehabil2003; 25: 9-18.
18.
Collin C, Wade DT, Davis S et al. The Barthel Index; a reliability study. Int Disabil Stud1988; 10: 61-63.
19.
Granger CV, Hamilton BB, Keith RA et al. Advances in functional assessment for medical rehabilitation. Top Geriat Rehabil1986; 1: 59-74.
20.
Granger CV, Cotter AC, Hamilton BB et al. Functional assessment scales: a study of persons with multiple sclerosis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil1990; 71: 870-875.
21.
Granger CV, Cotter AC, Hamilton BB et al. Functional assessment scales: a study of persons after stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil1993; 74: 133-138.
22.
Granger CV, Divan N, Fiedler RC. Functional assessment scales. A study of persons after traumatic brain injury. Am J Phys Med Rehabil1995; 74: 107-113.
23.
Ottenbacher KJ, Hsu Y, Granger CV et al. The reliability of the functional independence measure: a quantitative review. Arch Phys Med Rehabil1996; 77: 1226-1232.
24.
Jennett B, Bond M. Assessment of outcome after severe brain damage. a practical scale. Lancet1975; 1: 480-484.
25.
Wilson JT, Pettigrew LE, Teasdale GM. Structured interviews for the Glasgow Outcome Scale and the extended Glasgow Outcome Scale: guidelines for their use. J Neurotrauma1998; 15: 573-585.
26.
Rappaport M, Hall KM, Hopkins K et al. Disability rating scale for severe head trauma: coma to community. Arch Phys Med Rehabil1982; 63: 118-123.
27.
Donaghy S, Wass PJ. Interrater reliability of the functional assessment measure in a brain injury rehabilitation program. Arch Phys Med Rehabil1998; 79: 1231-1236.
28.
Zasler ND. Prognostic indicators in medical rehabilitation of traumatic brain injury: a commentary and review. Arch Phys Med Rehabil1997; 78: S12-S16.
29.
Jelles F, Van Bennekom CA, Lankhorst GJ et al. Inter and intra-rater agreement of the Rehabilitation Activities Profile. J Clin Epidemiol1995; 48: 407-416.
30.
König-Zahn C. The Coop/Wonca Charts. In: Hutchinson A, Bentzen AN, König-Zahn C eds. Cross cultural health outcome assessment: a user?s guide. European Research Group on Health Outcomes, 1997: 48-53.
31.
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: 183-193.
32.
Willer B, Ottenbacher KJ, Coad ML. The community integration questionnaire. A comparative examination. Am J Phys Med Rehabil1994; 73: 103-111.
33.
Ben-Yishay Y, Silver SM, Piasetsky E, Rattok J. Relationship between employability and vocational outcome after intensive holistic cognitive rehabilitation. J Head Trauma Rehabil1987; 2: 35-48.
34.
Holbrook M, Skilbeck CE. An activities index for use with stroke patients. Age Ageing1983; 12: 166-170.
35.
Wallston KA, Wallston BS, DeVellis R. Development of the Multidimensional Health Locus of Control Scales. Health Educ Monogr1978; 6: 160-166.
36.
Van Sonderen E. Sociale Steun Lijst Interakties (SSL-I) en Sociale Steun Lijst Discrepanties (SSL-D). Centrum voor Gezondheidsvraagstukken Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, 1997.
37.
Boake C. Supervision Rating Scale: a measure of functional outcome from brain injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil1996; 77: 765-772.
38.
Coughlan AK, Storey P. The Wimbledon Self-Report Scale: emotional and mood appraisal. Clin Rehabil1988; 2: 207-213.
39.
Ware JE, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36). I: Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care1992; 30: 473-483.
40.
Brazier JE, Harper R, Jones NMB et al. Validating the SF-36 health survey questionnaire: a new outcome measure for primary care. BMJ1992; 305: 160-164.
41.
Ware J, Snow KK, Kosinski M et al. SF-36 Health Survey: manual and interpretation guide. The Health Institute, New England Medical Center Hospitals, 1993.
42.
McHorney CA, Ware JE, Raczek AE. The MOS-36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36). II: Psychometric and clinical tests of validity in measuring physical and mental health constructs. Med Care1993; 31: 247-263.
43.
Corrigan JD, Smith-Knapp K, Granger CV. Outcomes in the first 5 years after traumatic brain injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil1998; 79: 298-305.
44.
Smith JL, Magill-Evans J, Brintnell S. Life satisfaction following traumatic brain injury. Can J Rehabil1998; 11: 131-140.
45.
Van Balen HGG, Mulder Th. Beyond the stereotype: an epidemiological study on the long-term sequelae of traumatic brain injury. Clin Rehabil1996; 10: 259-266.
46.
Moore AD, Stambrook M, Gill DD et al. Differences in long-term quality of life in married and single TBI patients. Can J Rehabil1992; 6: 89-98.
47.
Fleming JH, Strong J, Ashton R. Cluster analysis of self-awareness levels in adults with traumatic brain injury and relationship to outcome. J Head Trauma Rehabil1998; 13: 39-51.
48.
De Bruin AF, Diederik JPM, Witte de LP, Stevens FCJ, Philipsen H. The development of a short generic version of the Sickness Impact Profile. J Clin Epidemiol, 1994; 47: 407-418.
49.
Sacket DL, Haynes RB, Guyatt GH et al. Clinical epidemiology: a basic science for clinical medicine, second edition. Little, Brown and Co., 1991.
50.
Beckerman H, Roebroeck ME, Lankhorst GJ et al. Smallest real difference, a link between reproducibility and responsiveness. Qual Life Res2001; 10: 571-578.
51.
Streiner DL, Norman GR. Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use, second edition. Oxford University Press, 1995.
52.
Roebroeck ME, Harlaar J, Lankhorst GJ. Reliability assessment of isometric knee extension measurement with computer-assisted hand-held dynamometer. Arch Phys Med Rehabil1998; 79: 442-448.
53.
Fleiss JL. Statistical methods for rates and proportions. Wiley, 1981.
54.
Schreuders TAR, Roebroeck ME, Goumans J et al. Measurement error in grip and pinch force measurements in patients with hand injuries. Phys Ther2003; 83: 806-815.
55.
Geertzen JH, Dijkstra PU, Stewart RE et al. Variation in measurements of grip strength: a study in reflex sympathetic dystrophy patients. Acta Orthop Scand Suppl1998; 279: 4-11.
56.
Smidt N, van der Windt DA, Assendelft WJ et al. Interobserver reproducibility of the assessment of severity of complaints, grip strength, and pressure pain threshold in patients with lateral epicondylitis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil2002; 83: 1145-1150.
57.
Norman GR, Sloan JA, Wyrwich KW. Point/ counterpoint. Interpretation of changes in health-related quality of life. The remarkable universality of half a standard deviation. Med Care2003; 41: 582-592.
58.
MacDermid JC, Stratford P. Applying evidence on outcome measures to hand therapy practice. J Hand Ther2004; 17: 165-173.
59.
Hall KM, Bushnik T, Lakisic-Kazazic, B et al. Assessing traumatic brain injury outcome measures for long-term follow-up of community-based individuals. Arch Phys Med Rehabil2001; 82: 367-374.
