Citation

Mathias JL, Harman-Smith Y, Bowden S, Rosenfeld JV, Bigler ED. J. Neurotrauma 2014; 31(7): 658-669.

Affiliation

University of Adelaide, Psychology, North Terrace, Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia, 5000, +61 8 8313 3770 ; psyj-mat@psychology.adelaide.edu.au.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2014, Mary Ann Liebert Publishers)

DOI

10.1089/neu.2013.3160

PMID

24228916

Abstract

Clinical research into outcomes after traumatic brain injury (TBI) frequently combines injuries that have been sustained through different causes (car accidents, assaults, falls); the impact of which is not well understood. This study examined the contribution of injury-related psychological trauma - which is more commonly associated with specific types of injuries - to outcomes following non-penetrating TBI in order to determine whether it may be having a differential impact in samples containing mixed injuries. Data from three groups that were prospectively recruited for two larger studies were compared: one that sustained a TBI as a result of physical assaults (i.e, psychologically traumatising) and another as a result of sporting injuries (i.e., non-psychologically traumatising), as well as an orthopaedic control group (OC). Psychosocial and emotional (post-concussion symptoms, injury-related stress, depression), cognitive (memory, abstract reasoning, problem solving, verbal fluency), and functional (general outcome; resumption of home, social and work roles) outcomes were all assessed. The TBIassault group reported significantly poorer psychosocial and emotional outcomes and higher rates of litigation (criminal rather than civil) than both the TBIsport and OC groups approximately 6 months post-injury, but there were no differences in the cognitive or functional outcomes of the three groups. The findings suggest that the cause of a TBI may assist in explaining some of the differences in the outcomes of people who have seemingly comparable injuries. Involvement in litigation and the cause of an injury may also be confounded, which may lead to the erroneous conclusion that litigants have poorer outcomes.

Language: en