Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40835805›Full record

ReviewNeuropsychology review2025

Group Psychosocial Interventions Following Acquired Brain Injury: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Group Process and Outcomes.

Hannah L McGlashan, Kate Thompson, Michael Lam, Tegan Cruwys, Zoe C Walter, Elizabeth Beadle, Catherine Haslam

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Neuropsychology review, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Hannah L McGlashanSchool of Psychology, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia. h.mcglashan@student.uq.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0952-9827
Kate ThompsonSchool of Psychology, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2269-1215
Michael LamSchool of Public Health, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9648-7738
Tegan CruwysSchool of Medicine and Psychology, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5296-3480
Zoe C WalterSchool of Psychology, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8310-4021
Elizabeth BeadleSchool of Psychology, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4396-0223
Catherine HaslamSchool of Psychology, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0124-9601

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Acquired brain injury can result in disability with direct and indirect consequences for psychosocial functioning. Psychosocial interventions embedded within traditional neurorehabilitation may provide a valuable buffer. While there is evidence of benefits associated with group-based psychosocial interventions, there is no single recommended intervention, despite several different approaches having been trialled. This systematic review aimed to provide a critical appraisal of existing group psychosocial interventions in neurorehabilitation, meta-analyse their efficacy, and explore the contribution of group process to outcomes. Eligible studies were published in English-language peer-reviewed journals and recruited adults with acquired brain injury in receipt of group psychosocial interventions. Outcomes of interest were depression, anxiety, quality of life, emotional distress, community integration, and social support. A systematic search of CINAHL, PsycINFO, Medline, Web of Science and Embase from database inception until 08.07.2024 was conducted. Risk of bias was assessed using the Effective Public Health Practice Project Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies. Effect sizes were calculated using Hedges' g and estimated using a three-level random effects model. Sixty-five studies were included in the systematic review, and 48 were included in the meta-analysis (n = 2653). There was an overall small effect on psychosocial outcomes (Hedges' g = 0.24, 95% CIs [0.16, 0.33]), though none of the included studies satisfactorily analysed group process despite 70% of these studies proclaiming their importance. Overall, there were mixed findings across intervention type and significant heterogeneity. Recommendations for future psychosocial group interventions in neurorehabilitation are provided.

Indexed as

Acquired brain injuryGroup processPsychosocialRehabilitation

Identifiers

PMID40835805

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.