Depression is one of the most common psychiatric diagnoses among individuals with traumatic brain injury (TBI). Prevalence of post-TBI depression (PTBID) ranges from 12 to 60% and is generally higher than rates reported in the general population. The wide range in reported rates is attributed to methodological variability across studies, including measurement and sampling differences. Several systematic reviews have been published in the past 5 years, reporting on outcomes for depression across different classes of interventions, including pharmacological, biomedical and behavioural. The consensus across reviews is that more research is necessary to develop evidence-based practice guidelines. The present narrative review synthesises the findings of previous studies, focusing on the nature of the interventions, the eligibility criteria for inclusion and the assessment of outcome. Pharmacological studies are generally more rigorous methodologically, but provide mixed findings. Other biomedical interventions are only at the initial stages of research development, including case and pilot studies. The results of behavioural studies are positive regarding improvements in mood. However, the number of efficacy studies of behavioural interventions for depression is extremely limited. Recommendations for designing interventions are provided.

Objective: Review the literature to evaluate the evidence for effective treatment to mitigate substance misuse and substance use disorders (SUD) following traumatic brain injury (TBI).

Design: Systematic review.

Data source: Scopus.

Study eligibility criteria: A study was considered eligible for review if (a) the intended population specifically included persons with TBI; (b) the experimental intervention targeted misuse of alcohol, illegal drugs or prescription drugs; (c) the intervention was compared to the standard of care, control or another intervention; (d) the outcomes under study included substance use or misuse; and (e) the study design was a controlled trial.

Results: Six studies were identified that met the inclusion criteria. Three studies were conducted during the acute phase of recovery using brief interventions, while the remaining three were conducted with individuals in the post-acute phase (usually several years post-injury) using more intensive treatment. All studies were found to be vulnerable to bias due to methodological weaknesses.

Conclusions: While firm conclusions could not be drawn from the results of the studies, each study provided important information about the challenges to conducting SUD intervention trials with persons with TBI. The choices researchers will have to make to address these challenges are delineated.

In 2005 Elliott et al. published a paper entitled ‘Effect of posture on levels of arousal and awareness in vegetative and minimally conscious patients: a preliminary investigation’. Twelve patients, of whom 5 were in the vegetative state (VS) and 7 in the minimally conscious state (MCS), were assessed with the Wessex Head Injury Matrix (WHIM) when supine and when upright on a tilt table. The present study replicated and extended these findings by including a third position, sitting, in addition to supine and standing. We assessed 16 patients (8 in the VS and 8 in the MCS) with mixed aetiologies and compared the observed behaviours in three different positions (supine, sitting and standing) using the WHIM. Most patients (75%) showed more behaviours when in the upright position, compared to lying down (p < .003). Our findings are similar to those seen in the study reported by Elliott et al. With regard to sitting, 62.5% of patients were more responsive when assessed sitting in a wheelchair (p < .05) than in a supine position, and almost 69% were more responsive if assessed in an upright position compared to sitting. This was particularly true for patients in the MCS, where 87.5% did better if assessed on a tilt table or standing frame compared to sitting, suggesting that positional changes can have an effect on the level of arousal and awareness among patients in the VS and MCS.

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is prevalent among many populations and existing data suggest that those with TBI are at increased risk for death by suicide. This systematic review serves as an update to a previous review, with the aim of evaluating the current state of evidence regarding prevalence and risk of suicide deaths, post-TBI suicidal ideation and suicide attempts, and treatments to reduce suicide-related outcomes among TBI survivors. Review procedures followed the PRISMA statement guidelines. In all, 1014 abstracts and 83 full-text articles were reviewed to identify 16 studies meeting inclusion criteria. Risk of bias for individual studies ranged from low to high, and very few studies were designed to examine a priori hypotheses related to suicide outcomes of interest. Overall, findings from this systematic review supported an increased risk of suicide among TBI survivors compared to those with no history of TBI. Evidence pertaining to suicidal thoughts and attempts was less clear, mainly due to heterogeneity of methodological quality across studies. One small randomised controlled trial was identified that targeted suicide prevention in TBI survivors. Further research is needed to identify the prevalence of post-TBI ideation and attempts, and to establish evidence-based suicide prevention practices among TBI survivors.

The purpose of the current paper was to conduct a systematic review of the literature on predictors of emotional distress in caregivers of persons with traumatic brain injury (TBI), and to provide evidence-based classification for prognostic variables to guide future research and clinical practice. A search was conducted using PubMed, CINAHL and PsycINFO databases. The citations of resulting articles were also reviewed. Twenty-eight articles met inclusion criteria and were retained for review. Reviews were conducted in accordance with the 2011 edition of the American Academy of Neurology (AAN) Guidelines for classifying evidence for prognostic studies. Data abstraction revealed one Class I study, four Class II studies, eight Class III studies, and 15 Class IV studies. Results of the review indicated that caregivers’ report of neurobehavioural problems in the person with injury is a probable predictor of emotional distress for caregivers of persons with complicated mild, moderate or severe TBI (Class B evidence). The level of participation in the person with injury, level of support needed by the person with injury, and family systems functioning are probably predictors of emotional distress for caregivers of persons with severe TBI (Class B evidence). Executive functioning impairment in the person with injury, pre-injury emotional distress in caregivers, caregiver age, caregivers’ use of emotion-focused coping, and social support may possibly be risk factors for caregivers’ emotional distress (Class C evidence). Recommendations for future research and implications for assessment and treatment of family caregivers are discussed.

This paper describes the value of collaboration from two perspectives. The first perspective highlights the benefit of teaching communication partners collaborative communication strategies to facilitate the interactions of people with traumatic brain injury (TBI). Collaborative strategies encompass the provision of collaborative intent, emotional and cognitive support, positive questioning styles and collaborative turn taking. Translating research outcomes into accessible resources is described with reference to the TBI Express website which has video demonstrations of conversation strategies for communication partners of people with TBI. The broader meaning of collaboration is also discussed, with particular focus on the advantages collaboration can provide in advancing rehabilitation outcomes for people with acquired brain injury, their families and social networks. Collaboration is described in terms of encompassing all relevant contributors to the development of research advances, including people with acquired brain injury, their families and social networks, stakeholders, clinicians, peak bodies, students and researchers. Two examples of large-scale research collaborations occurring within Australia are described, including the NHMRC Clinical Centre of Research Excellence in Aphasia Rehabilitation and the NHMRC Moving Ahead Centre for Research Excellence in Brain Recovery, also known as Moving Ahead.