ReviewPloS one2025
An exploratory review of resiliency assessments after brain injury.
Review in PloS one, 2025. 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
backgroundPeople with brain injury can have lower resiliency compared to the general public. Yet, resiliency facilitates positive processes to negotiate adversity after brain injury. Therefore, measuring resiliency after a brain injury is important.
objectiveThe review aimed to (1) identify self-report resiliency outcome measures for use with people after acquired brain injury, using the process-based Traumatic Brain Injury Resiliency Model as the guiding conceptual framework, and (2) summarize the psychometric properties of the identified outcome measures and the utility of these measures in clinical rehabilitation.
methodThe COSMIN guidelines for systematic reviews were followed to ensure appropriate reporting for each measure. Databases CINAHL, EMBASE, Medline, and PsychINFO were searched and independently reviewed by two people. Articles providing data on psychometric properties for measures of resilience for people with brain injury were retrieved. Psychometric properties and clinical utility (number of items, scoring details) were summarized.
resultsThirty-two articles were retrieved, including nine measures of resiliency: Acceptance and Action Questionnaire-Acquired Brain Injury, Confidence after Stroke Measure, Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale, Daily Living Self-Efficacy Scale, General Self-Efficacy Scale, Participation Strategies Self-Efficacy Scale, Resilience Scale, Robson Self-Esteem Scale, and the Stroke Self-Efficacy Questionnaire. All measures have acceptable to excellent psychometric properties in accordance with the COSMIN guidelines.
conclusionThere are established measures of resiliency in brain injury rehabilitation. Future work may explore use of these measures in a clinical context and implementation of rehabilitation goals for improving resiliency after brain injury.
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.