ArticleClinical rehabilitation2024
Assessment of mood after severe acquired brain injury: Interviews with UK clinical psychologists and medical professionals.
Article in Clinical rehabilitation, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Working towards consensus on the assessment of mood after severe acquired brain injury: Focus groups with UK-based professionals.Clinical rehabilitation · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveMood assessment is challenging when people have cognitive and receptive communication impairments after severe brain injury. This study explored how UK-based medical and psychology professionals working with people with severe cognitive and communication impairments after brain injury assess mood in this population.
designFollowing their participation in an online survey, professionals were invited to participate in individual semi-structured interviews. Interviews were analysed using thematic analysis to label explicit data (semantic themes) and implicit data (latent themes).
participantsTwenty-three clinical psychologists and nine medical professionals participated in online or in-person interviews.
resultsBoth groups explicitly reported using a combination of collateral information, history, observations, and patient interviews when assessing mood in this population. Medical professionals did not routinely use standardised measures and clinical psychologists often adjusted them when they used them. The respondents discussed difficulties conceptualising depression after brain injury, the experience needed by the assessor, and the need for an individualised approach for this population. Clinical psychologists discussed the pressures of working in healthcare systems and medical professionals discussed how symptoms may influence prescription choices. Seven latent themes were labelled which highlighted additional challenges and complexities experienced by those assessing mood, beyond the actual assessment process itself.
conclusionsNo 'gold standard' approach to assessing mood in those with cognitive and communication difficulties after severe brain injury was identified. There was overlap in assessment approaches but no clear consensus. Interviewees felt that mood assessment must be approached differently in this population and that self-report measures are not useful.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.