Inpatient Physical Therapy in Moderate to Severe Traumatic Brain Injury in in Older Adults: A Scoping Review
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Methods
2.1. Inclusion Criteria
2.2. Information Sources
2.3. Search Strategy
2.4. Selection of Sources of Evidence
2.5. Data Charting Process
2.6. Data Items
2.7. Critical Appraisal and Synthesis of Results according to Quality of the Selected Studies
3. Results
3.1. Interventional Studies
3.2. Studies including Prognostic Factors and/or Responses Resulting from Inpatient Rehabilitation
3.3. Gray Literature
3.4. The Results in Brief
4. Discussion
4.1. Interventional Studies
4.2. Studies including Prognostic Factors and/or Responses Resulting from Inpatient Rehabilitation
4.3. Strength and Limitations
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Downs and Black Checklist | ||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Study Design | Interventional Studies (Randomized and Non-Randomized Trials) | Studies Addressing Prognostic Factors and/or Responses Resulting from Inpatient Rehabilitation (Retrospective Studies) | ||||||||||
Articles (Authors, Year of Publication) | Frazzitta et al., 2016 | De Sousa et al., 2016 | Pang et al., 2019 | Perry et al., 2019 | Chan et al., 2013 | Khoo et al., 2019 | Dijkers et al., 2013 | Evans et al., 2012 | Lamm et al., 2019 | Scott et al., 2021 | Wu et al., 2018 | |
Reporting | 1. Is the hypothesis/aim/objective of the study clearly described? | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
2. Are the main outcomes to be measured clearly described in the Introduction or Methods section? | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
3. Are the characteristics of the patients included in the study clearly described? | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | |
4. Are the interventions of interest clearly described? | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
5. Are the distributions of principal confounders in each group of subjects to be compared clearly described? | 1 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 1 | |
6. Are the main findings of the study clearly described? | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | |
7. Does the study provide estimates of the random variability in the data for the main outcomes? | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | |
8. Have all important adverse events that may be a consequence of the intervention been reported? | 1 | 0 | 1 | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | |
9. Have the characteristics of patients lost to follow-up been described? | 1 | 1 | 1 | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | |
10. Have actual probability values been reported (e.g., 0.035 rather than < 0.05) for the main outcomes except where the probability value is less than 0.001? | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | |
External validity | 11. Were the subjects asked to participate in the study representative of the entire population from which they were recruited? | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
12. Were those subjects who were prepared to participate representative of the entire population from which they were recruited? | 1 | 0 | 0 | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | |
13. Were the staff, places, and facilities where the patients were treated, representative of the treatment the majority of the patients receive? | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
Internal validity-bias | 14. Was an attempt made to blind study subjects to the intervention they have received? | 1 | 0 | 0 | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
15. Was an attempt made to blind those measuring the main outcomes of the intervention? | 1 | 1 | 0 | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | |
16. If any of the results of the study were based on “data dredging”, was this made clear? | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | |
17. In trials and cohort studies, do the analyses adjust for different lengths of follow-up of patients, or in case-control studies, is the time period between the intervention and outcomes the same for cases and controls? | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | |
18. Were the statistical tests used to assess the main outcomes appropriate? | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
19. Was compliance with the intervention/s reliable? | 1 | 1 | 1 | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | |
20. Were the main outcome measures used accurate (valid and reliable)? | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
Internal validity-confounding (selection bias) | 21. Were the patients in different intervention groups (trials and cohort studies) or were the cases and controls (case-control studies) recruited from the same population? | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
22. Were study subjects in different intervention groups (trials and cohort studies) or were the cases and controls (case-control studies) recruited over the same period of time? | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | |
23. Were study subjects randomized to intervention groups? | 1 | 1 | 1 | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | |
24. Was the randomized intervention assignment concealed from both patients and health care staff until recruitment was complete and irrevocable? | 1 | 1 | 0 | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | |
25. Was there adequate adjustment for confounding in the analyses from which the main findings were drawn? | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
26. Were losses of patients to follow-up taken into account? | 1 | 1 | 1 | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | |
Power | 27. Did the study have sufficient power to detect a clinically important effect where the probability value for a difference being due to chance is less than 5%? | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Total Score | 24/28 (86%) | 21/28 (75%) | 19/28 (68%) | 15/19 (79%) | 14/19 (74%) | 16/19 (84%) | 16/19 (84%) | 11/19 (58%) | 13/19 (68%) | 9/19 (47%) | 14/19 (74%) |
Appendix B
Domain | Items assessed (When Applicable) | 1 INESS, 2018 | 2 ERABI, 2018 | 3 Stippler et al., 2012 | 4 Yee et al., 2021 | 5 Physiopedia 2022 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Authority | 1. Identifying who is responsible for the intellectual content. | |||||
1. Individual author | ||||||
1.1 Associated with a reputable organization? | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | |
1.2 Professional qualifications or considerable experience? | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | |
1.3 Produced/published other work (grey/black) in the field? | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | |
1.4 Recognized expert, identified in other sources? | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | N/A | |
1.5 Cited by others? (used Google Scholar as a quick check) | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | |
1.6 Higher degree student under “expert” supervision? | No | No | Yes | No | No | |
2. Organisation or group | ||||||
2.1 Is the organization reputable? (e.g., W.H.O) | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | No | |
2.2 Is the organization an authority in the field? | Yes | No | No | No | No | |
3. In all cases | ||||||
3.1 Does the item have a detailed reference list or bibliography? | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | |
4. Comments | ||||||
Accuracy | Does the item have a clearly stated aim or brief? | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | No |
Is so, is it met? | Yes | Yes | Yes | N/A | N/A | |
Does it have a stated methodology? | Yes | No | No | N/A | No | |
If so, is it adhered to? | Yes | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | |
Has it been peer-reviewed? | Yes | No | No | N/A | No | |
Has it been edited by a reputable authority? | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | No | |
Supported by authoritative, documented references or credible sources? | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | |
Is it representative of work in the field? | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | |
If No, is it a valid counterbalance? | N/A | N/A | Yes | N/A | N/A | |
Is any data collection explicit and appropriate for research? | Yes | Yes | Yes | N/A | N/A | |
If item is secondary material (e.g., a policy brief of a technical report refers to the original. | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | |
Is it an accurate, unbiased interpretation or analysis? | Yes | Yes | No | N/A | N/A | |
Comments: | ||||||
Coverage | All items have parameters which define their content coverage. These limits might mean that work refers to a particular population group, or that it excluded certain types of publication. A report could be designed to answer a particular question or be based on statistics from a particular survey. | |||||
Are any limits clearly stated? | Yes | No | No | N/A | N/A | |
Objectivity | Is it important to identify bias, particularly if it is unstated or unacknowledged. | |||||
Opinion, expert or otherwise, is still opinion: is the author’s standpoint clear? | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | No | |
Does the work seem to be balanced in presentation? | Yes | Yes | No | N/A | N/A | |
Comments: | ||||||
Date | For the item to inform your research, it needs to have a date that confirms relevance | |||||
Does the item have a clearly stated date related to content? No easily discernible date is a strong concern. | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | No | |
If no date is given, but can be closely ascertained, is there a valid reason for its absence? | N/A | No | Yes | N/A | N/A | |
Check the bibliography: have key contemporary material been included? | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | |
Comments: | ||||||
Significance | This is a value judgment of the item, in the context of relevant research area | |||||
Is the item meaningful? (This incorporates feasibility, utility, and relevance) | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | |
Does it add context? | Yes | Yes | Yes | N/A | N/A | |
Does it enrich or add something unique to the research? | Yes | Yes | No | N/A | N/A | |
Does it strengthen or refute a current position? | Yes | Yes | No | No | No | |
Would the research area be lesser without it? | Yes | Yes | No | No | No | |
Is it integral, representative, typical? | Yes | Yes | No | N/A | N/A | |
Does it have impact? (In the sense of influencing the work or behavior of others) | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | |
Total results: /34 | 30/32 (94%) | 24/31 (77%) | 18/32 (56%) | 14/18 (78%) | 9/19 (47%) |
References
- Dewan, M.C.; Rattani, A.; Gupta, S.; Baticulon, R.E.; Hung, Y.-C.; Punchak, M.; Agrawal, A.; Adeleye, A.O.; Shrime, M.G.; Rubiano, A.M.; et al. Estimating the global incidence of traumatic brain injury. J. Neurosurg. 2019, 130, 1080–1097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brain Injury Canada. Statistics on Brain Injury. Brain Injury Canada. 2020. Available online: https://braininjurycanada.ca/en/statistics/ (accessed on 1 August 2022).
- Institut National D’excellence en Santé et en Services Sociaux (INESSS). Portrait du Réseau Québécois de Traumatologie Adulte: 2013 à 2016; Rapport rédigé par Catherine Gonthier, Amina Belcaïd et Catherine Truchon; INESSS: Québec, QC, Canada, 2019; 102p. [Google Scholar]
- Mas, M.F.; Mathews, A.; Gilbert-Baffoe, E. Rehabilitation Needs of the Elder with Traumatic Brain Injury. Phys. Med. Rehabil. Clin. N. Am. 2017, 28, 829–842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Statistic Canada. Older Adults and Population Aging Statistics. Available online: https://www.statcan.gc.ca/en/subjects-start/older_adults_and_population_aging (accessed on 2 August 2022).
- Governement of Canada E and SD. Government of Canada—Action for Seniors Report. Available online: https://www.canada.ca/en/employment-social-development/programs/seniors-action-report.html (accessed on 2 August 2022).
- Chutes chez les aînés. INSPQ. Available online: https://www.inspq.qc.ca/securite-prevention-de-la-violence-et-des-traumatismes/prevention-des-traumatismes-non-intentionnels/dossiers/chutes-chez-les-aines (accessed on 4 July 2022).
- Public Health Agency of Canada PHA of. Seniors’ Falls in Canada—Infographic. Available online: https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/health-promotion/aging-seniors/publications/publications-general-public/seniors-falls-canada-second-report/seniors-falls-canada-infographic.html (accessed on 2 August 2022).
- Klebine, P. What Is Expected in Recovering from a Traumatic Brain Injury?—Traumatic Brain Injury Information Network|UAB. Available online: https://www.uab.edu/medicine/tbi/newly-injured/questions-about-traumatic-brain-injury-tbi/what-is-expected-in-recovering-from-a-tbi (accessed on 2 August 2022).
- Chan, V.; Zagorski, B.; Parsons, D.; Colantonio, A. Older adults with acquired brain injury: Outcomes after inpatient rehabilitation. Can. J. Aging 2013, 32, 278–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Center for Disease Control and Prevention. Moderate to Severe Traumatic Brain Injury Is a Lifelong Condition; Center for Disease Control and Prevention: Atlanta, GA, USA, 2021; p. 2.
- Rhodius-Meester, H.F.M.; van de Schraaf, S.A.; Peters, M.J.; Kleipool, E.E.; Trappenburg, M.C.; Muller, M. Mortality Risk and Its Association with Geriatric Domain Deficits in Older Outpatients: The Amsterdam Ageing Cohort. Gerontology 2021, 67, 194–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ramanathan, D.M.; McWilliams, N.; Schatz, P.; Hillary, F.G. Epidemiological Shifts in Elderly Traumatic Brain Injury: 18-Year Trends in Pennsylvania. J. Neurotrauma 2012, 29, 1371–1378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- An, M.; Shaughnessy, M. The effects of exercise-based rehabilitation on balance and gait for stroke patients: A systematic review. J. Neurosci. Nurs. 2011, 43, 298–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Engel, H.J.; Tatebe, S.; Alonzo, P.B.; Mustille, R.L.; Rivera, M.J. Physical therapist-established intensive care unit early mobilization program: Quality improvement project for critical care at the University of California San Francisco Medical Center. Phys. Ther. 2013, 93, 975–985. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tricco, A.C.; Lillie, E.; Zarin, W.; O’Brien, K.K.; Colquhoun, H.; Levac, D.; Moher, D.; Peters, M.D.; Horsley, T.; Weeks, L.; et al. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. Ann. Intern. Med. 2018, 169, 467–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wilson, J.T.; Pettigrew, L.E.; Teasdale, G.M. Structured interviews for the Glasgow Outcome Scale and the extended Glasgow Outcome Scale: Guidelines for their use. J. Neurotrauma 1998, 15, 573–585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Corporation for Digital Scholarship. Zotero. Fairfax, Virginia, United States of America. 2006. Available online: https://digitalscholar.org/ (accessed on 8 July 2022).
- Downs, S.H.; Black, N. The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 1998, 52, 377–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Burls, A. What Is Critical Appraisal? Hayward Medical Communications: London, UK, 2015; pp. 80–85. [Google Scholar]
- De Sousa, D.G.; Harvey, L.A.; Dorsch, S.; Leung, J.; Harris, W. Functional electrical stimulation cycling does not improve mobility in people with acquired brain injury and its effects on strength are unclear: A randomised trial. J. Physiother. 2016, 62, 203–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Frazzitta, G.; Zivi, I.; Valsecchi, R.; Bonini, S.; Maffia, S.; Molatore, K.; Sebastianelli, L.; Zarucchi, A.; Matteri, D.; Ercoli, G.; et al. Effectiveness of a Very Early Stepping Verticalization Protocol in Severe Acquired Brain Injured Patients: A Randomized Pilot Study in ICU. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0158030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Pang, Y.; Li, H.; Zhao, L.; Zhang, C. An Established Early Rehabilitation Therapy Demonstrating Higher Efficacy and Safety for Care of Intensive Care Unit Patients. Med. Sci. Monit. 2019, 25, 7052–7058. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Perry, S.B.; Billek-Sawhney, B.; Woollard, J.; Little, S.; Szalinski, A. Balance and Mobility Improvements During Inpatient Rehabilitation Are Similar in Young-Old, Mid-Old, and Old-Old Adults With Traumatic Brain Injury. J. Head Trauma Rehabil. 2019, 34, E66–E73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khoo, T.C.; FitzGerald, A.; MacDonald, E.; Bradley, L. Outcomes for older adults in inpatient specialist neurorehabilitation. Ann. Phys. Rehabil. Med. 2020, 63, 340–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Dijkers, M.; Brandstater, M.; Horn, S.; Ryser, D.; Barrett, R. Inpatient rehabilitation for traumatic brain injury: The influence of age on treatments and outcomes. NeuroRehabilitation 2013, 32, 233–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Evans, E.; Resnik, L.; Gutman, R.; Lueckel, S.; Zonfrillo, M.; Thomas, K. Factors Associated with Unsuccessful Admissions to Inpatient Rehabilitation Facilities Among Older Adults With Traumatic Brain Injury. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2021, 102, e12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lamm, A.G.; Goldstein, R.; Giacino, J.T.; Niewczyk, P.; Schneider, J.C.; Zafonte, R. Changes in Patient Demographics and Outcomes in the Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility Traumatic Brain Injury Population from 2002 to 2016: Implications for Patient Care and Clinical Trials. J. Neurotrauma 2019, 36, 2513–2520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Scott, J.; Kandala, N.B.; Fearon, P.; Robinson, L. Embedded rehabilitation in major trauma: Retrospective pre-post observational study of service and patient outcomes. Injury 2021, 52, 160–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, J.; Faux, S.G.; Poulos, C.J.; Harris, I. Brain injury rehabilitation after road trauma in new South Wales, Australia—Insights from a data linkage study. BMC Health Serv. Res. 2018, 18, 204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Bayley, M.T.; Lamontagne, M.E.; Kua, A.; Marshall, S.; Marier-Deschênes, P.; Allaire, A.S.; Kagan, C.; Truchon, C.; Janzen, S.; Teasell, R.; et al. Unique Features of the INESSS-ONF Rehabilitation Guidelines for Moderate to Severe Traumatic Brain Injury: Responding to Users’ Needs. J. Head Trauma Rehabil. 2018, 33, 296–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Meyer, M.J.; Vanin Moreno, N.; Faltynek, P.; Harnett, A.; Teasell, R. 15. Acute Interventions for Acquired Brain Injury. ERABI. Available online: https://erabi.ca/modules/module-15/ (accessed on 8 July 2022).
- Martina Stippler, M.D.; Elizabeth Holguin, M.S.N.; Edwin Nemoto, P. Traumatic Brain Injury in Elders. Annals of Long-Term Care. Available online: https://www.hmpgloballearningnetwork.com/site/altc/articles/traumatic-brain-injury-elders (accessed on 8 July 2022).
- Yee, G.; Jain, A. Geriatric Head Injury; StatPearls; StatPearls Publishing: Treasure Island, FL, USA, 2022. Available online: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK553101/ (accessed on 8 July 2022).
- Physiotherapy Management of Traumatic Brain Injury. Available online: https://www.physio-pedia.com/index.php?title=Physiotherapy_Management_of_Traumatic_Brain_Injury&oldid=320530 (accessed on 14 November 2022).
Characteristics | |
---|---|
1. Countries | n (%) for a total of 16 |
1.1 USA | 5 (31) |
1.2 Canada | 3 (19) |
1.3 United Kingdom | 3 (19) |
1.4 Australia | 2 (13) |
1.5 China | 1 (6) |
1.6 Poland | 1 (6) |
1.7 Unspecified | 1 (6) |
2. Journal focus | n (%) for a total of 16 |
2.1 Moderate to severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) | 5 (31) |
2.2 TBI in general | 4 (25) |
2.3 TBI (severe) | 4 (25) |
2.4 Cerebral lesions, including TBI | 3 (19) |
3. Journals and other sources | n (%) for a total of 16 |
3.1 The Journal of head trauma rehabilitation | 2 (13) |
3.2 Annals of Long-term Care | 1 (6) |
3.3 Annals of Physical and Rehabilitation Med | 1 (6) |
3.4 BMC Health Services Research | 1 (6) |
3.5 Cambridge Journal of Aging | 1 (6) |
3.6 Evidence-based review of moderate to severe acquired brain injury (ERABI online clinical tool) | 1 (6) |
3.7 Injury-International journal of the care of the Injured | 1 (6) |
3.8 Journal of Neurotrauma | 1 (6) |
3.9 Journal of Physiotherapy | 1 (6) |
3.10 Medical Science Monitor | 1 (6) |
3.11 Neurorehabilitation | 1 (6) |
3.12 Physiopedia | 1 (6) |
3.13 PLOS One | 1 (6) |
3.14 PM&R journal | 1 (6) |
3.15 Book | 1 (6) |
4. Primary journal audience | n (%) for a total of 16 |
4.1 Medical | 5 (31) |
4.2 Rehabilitation | 5 (31) |
4.3 Physiotherapy | 2 (13) |
4.4 Geriatric | 1 (6) |
4.5 Science in general | 1 (6) |
5. Publication type | n (%) for a total of 16 |
5.1 Retrospective study | 8 (50) |
5.2 Randomized clinical trial | 4 (25) |
5.3 Book | 2 (13) |
5.4 Description of models of practice | 1 (6) |
5.5 Reports | 1 (6) |
Author and Year of Publication | Design | Population | Interventions | Main Findings |
---|---|---|---|---|
Interventional studies | ||||
De Sousa et al., 2016 [21] | RCT | ≈60 y Non-progressive acquired brain injury, including traumatic brain injury (TBI) (n = 40) | Functional electrical stimulation (FES) on ergocycle (5 times/week, 4 weeks, 17–32 min/session). Interdisciplinary teamwork. |
|
Frazzitta et al., 2016 [22] | Randomized pilot study (Parallel group) | ≥18 y Severe TBI (n = 40) | Verticalization (daily sessions of 30 min, 15 sessions/patient) and convention in-bed physical therapy (30 min), 5 times/week for 3 weeks. |
|
Pang et al., 2019 [23] | RCT | 18 to 80 y Cerebral injuries including TBI (n = 42) | Conventional therapy. Awakening therapy with transcranial direct current stimulation. Hyperbaric oxygenation. Sensory stimulation. Fastigial nucleus stimulation. Lower limb exercise program. Passive and active self-assisted exercises. Electric stimulation. |
|
Studies addressing prognostic factors and/or responses resulting from inpatient rehabilitation | ||||
Perry et al., 2019 [24] | Retrospective case series | ≥65 y TBI (n = 100) | Inpatient rehabilitation. |
|
Chan et al., 2013 [10] | Retrospective cohort study | ≥65 y (n = 1214 TBI and 1530 non-traumatic TBI from 2003 to 2009) | In-patient rehabilitation. with a previous acute care admission. |
|
Dijkers et al., 2013 [26] | Retrospective study | ≥14 y divided 6 groups (<30, 30–44, 45–64, 65–74, 75–84, ≥85) TBI severe enough to warrant inpatient rehabilitation (n = 1419, 24% of patients ≥ 65 y, from 9 inpatient facilities) | Interdisciplinary teamwork: psychology, physical therapy, occupational therapy, therapeutic recreation, and speech and language pathology. Physical therapy interventions: therapeutic exercise, bed mobility, equipment management sitting-standing-transfers, wheelchair mobility, gait training, resting, patient home assessment, etc. |
|
Evans et al., 2021 [27] | Retrospective cohort study | ≥66 y Mild to severe TBI (n = 1178 from 2011 to 2015) | Inpatient rehabilitation. |
|
Khoo et al., 2020 [25] | Retrospective study | ≥65 and <65 y. Brain and peripheral injuries (TBI 70%, n = 429/616 from 2011 to 2016) | Specialized neurorehabilitation. Interdisciplinary teamwork. |
|
Lamm et al., 2019 [28] | Retrospective study | <55, 55–64, > 64 y. TBI from 2002 to 2016 (n = 233,843 from 1290 facilities in USA) | Neurorehabilitation. |
|
Scott et al., 2021 [29] | Retrospective study | ≥18 y (mean age: 57) Patients admitted to a Major Trauma Center including n = 1970/6484, 28% of head trauma from 2012 to 2018) | Interdisciplinary teamwork: consultant allied health professional, rehabilitation leads, occupational therapy, physiotherapy, speech and language therapy, dietetics, psychology, social work and generic rehabilitation support. |
|
Wu et al., 2018 [30] | Retrospective study | >18 y, 16% patients ≥65 y, mean age 42 y) TBI in general (n = 268/667, 40% TBI from 2009 to 2012) | Trauma care units (specialist and non-specialist inpatient rehabilitation units). Interdisciplinary teamwork. |
|
Gray literature | ||||
Bayley et al., 2018 [31] | N/A | Moderate-to-severe TBI | N/A | The final recommendation set were divided in 2 sections: Section I: Components of the Optimal TBI Rehabilitation System (71 recommendations) and Section II: Assessment and Rehabilitation of Brain Injury Sequelae (195 recommendations). The recommendations address top priorities for the TBI rehabilitation system: (1) intensity/frequency of interventions; (2) rehabilitation models; (3) duration of interventions; and (4) continuity-of-care mechanisms. Key sequelae addressed (1) behavioral disorders; (2) cognitive dysfunction; (3) fatigue and sleep disturbances; and (4) mental health. From the 71 recommendations, some are applicable to physiotherapy:
|
Meyer et al., 2018 [32] | N/A | ≥65 y and adults Moderate-to-severe TBI | Physiotherapy every day during the acute phase. Head elevation at 30° (intracranial pressure). Electrical stimulation. Sensory stimulation (auditory, tactile, multimodal). Verticalization. |
|
Physiopedia 2022 (Ziemer, Anna-original editor) [35] | N/A | Moderate-to-severe TBI | Awakening stimulation. Functional and physical stimulation. Mobility stimulation. Muscle tone normalization. Prevent or reduce secondary complication. Early mobilization. Airway clearance. Pain management. Manual therapy. Family and Caregiver’s Education. Education on equipment use. Neuromuscular stimulation. Positioning. Rising safety awareness. Balance and Postural control training. Verticalization. |
|
Stippler et al., 2012 [33] | N/A | ≥65 y, TBI | Prevent complications caused by immobilization. |
|
Yee et al., 2021 [34] | N/A | ≥65 y, severe TBI | Airway management. Seizure management. Cardiovascular management. Inclined the head at 30º and keep the neck neutral. Fall prevention. Interdisciplinary teamwork. |
|
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Noël, F.; Gagnon, M.-P.; Lajoie, J.; Côté, M.; Caron, S.-M.; Martin, A.; Labrie-Pichette, A.; Carvalho, L.P. Inpatient Physical Therapy in Moderate to Severe Traumatic Brain Injury in in Older Adults: A Scoping Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 3367. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20043367
Noël F, Gagnon M-P, Lajoie J, Côté M, Caron S-M, Martin A, Labrie-Pichette A, Carvalho LP. Inpatient Physical Therapy in Moderate to Severe Traumatic Brain Injury in in Older Adults: A Scoping Review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2023; 20(4):3367. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20043367
Chicago/Turabian StyleNoël, Florence, Marie-Pier Gagnon, Jasmine Lajoie, Marjorie Côté, Sarah-Maude Caron, Abygaël Martin, Alexis Labrie-Pichette, and Livia P. Carvalho. 2023. "Inpatient Physical Therapy in Moderate to Severe Traumatic Brain Injury in in Older Adults: A Scoping Review" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 20, no. 4: 3367. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20043367
APA StyleNoël, F., Gagnon, M. -P., Lajoie, J., Côté, M., Caron, S. -M., Martin, A., Labrie-Pichette, A., & Carvalho, L. P. (2023). Inpatient Physical Therapy in Moderate to Severe Traumatic Brain Injury in in Older Adults: A Scoping Review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 20(4), 3367. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20043367