ArticleClinical rehabilitation2024
Working towards consensus on the assessment of mood after severe acquired brain injury: Focus groups with UK-based professionals.
Article in Clinical rehabilitation, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
objectiveThe assessment of mood after brain injury is more challenging when people have ongoing severe cognitive and receptive communication impairments. There is no gold standard on how these assessments should be undertaken. This study aimed to reach a consensus on this among specialists working with this population.
designFocus groups were completed using a structured nominal group technique. Groups were compared for overlapping themes and agreed processes.
participantsFive focus groups with a total of 14 participants who work with the population of interest were completed. Participants included 12 clinical psychologists, one psychiatrist and one consultant in rehabilitation medicine.
resultsEach of the five groups reached a consensus on a process for assessing mood in this population. Results overlapped and were combined into a proposed circular and iterative model of assessment that includes: (pre) information gathering, (peri) assessment processes, and (post) treatment; with formulation being seen as a vital part of the process. Standardised measures were not recommended for use with this population. Beyond the consensus processes, three implicit themes were identified: (1) depression is different after severe brain injury, (2) overlapping tasks and roles, and (3) looking at the bigger picture.
conclusionsA good level of consensus was achieved across the five groups on processes to follow when assessing mood when people have ongoing cognitive and receptive communication impairments after severe brain injury. We recommend that this formulation-based model be followed when assessing people in this clinical population.
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.