A group memory rehabilitation programme for people with traumatic brain injuries: the ReMemBrIn RCT

Author:

das Nair Roshan123ORCID,Bradshaw Lucy E4ORCID,Carpenter Hannah5ORCID,Clarke Sara5ORCID,Day Florence4ORCID,Drummond Avril6ORCID,Fitzsimmons Deborah7ORCID,Harris Shaun7ORCID,Montgomery Alan A4ORCID,Newby Gavin8ORCID,Sackley Catherine9ORCID,Lincoln Nadina B5ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Division of Psychiatry and Applied Psychology, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK

2. Institute of Mental Health, Nottingham, UK

3. Department of Clinical Psychology and Neuropsychology, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK

4. Nottingham Clinical Trials Unit, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK

5. Division of Rehabilitation and Ageing, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK

6. School of Health Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK

7. Swansea Centre for Health Economics, Swansea University, Swansea, UK

8. Newby Psychological Services Ltd, Northwich, UK

9. Division of Health and Social Care, King’s College London, London, UK

Abstract

BackgroundPeople with traumatic brain injuries (TBIs) commonly report memory impairments. These are persistent, debilitating and reduce quality of life, but patients do not routinely receive memory rehabilitation after discharge from hospital.ObjectiveTo assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a group memory rehabilitation programme for people with TBI.DesignMulticentre, pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial. Qualitative and health economic evaluations were also undertaken.SettingCommunity settings in nine sites in England.ParticipantsParticipants were aged 18–69 years, had undergone a TBI > 3 months prior to recruitment, reported memory problems, were able to travel to a site to attend group sessions, could communicate in English and gave informed consent.Randomisation and blindingClusters of four to six participants were randomised to the memory rehabilitation arm or the usual-care arm on a 1 : 1 ratio. Randomisation was based on a computer-generated pseudo-random code using random permuted blocks of randomly varying size, stratified by study site. Participants and therapists were aware of the treatment allocation whereas outcome assessors were blinded.InterventionsIn the memory rehabilitation arm 10 weekly sessions of a manualised memory rehabilitation programme were provided in addition to usual care. Participants were taught restitution strategies to retrain impaired memory functions and compensation strategies to enable them to cope with memory problems. The usual-care arm received usual care only.Main outcome measuresOutcomes were assessed at 6 and 12 months after randomisation. Primary outcome: patient-completed Everyday Memory Questionnaire – patient version (EMQ-p) at 6 months’ follow-up. Secondary outcomes: Rivermead Behavioural Memory Test – third edition (RBMT-3), General Health Questionnaire 30-item version, European Brain Injury Questionnaire, Everyday Memory Questionnaire – relative version and individual goal attainment. Costs (based on a UK NHS and Personal Social Services perspective) were collected using a service use questionnaire, with the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version, used to derive quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). A Markov model was developed to explore cost-effectiveness at 5 and 10 years, with a 3.5% discount applied.ResultsWe randomised 328 participants (memory rehabilitation,n = 171; usual care,n = 157), with 129 in the memory rehabilitation arm and 122 in the usual-care arm included in the primary analysis. We found no clinically important difference on the EMQ-p between the two arms at 6 months’ follow-up (adjusted difference in mean scores –2.1, 95% confidence interval –6.7 to 2.5;p = 0.37). For secondary outcomes, differences favouring the memory rehabilitation arm were observed at 6 months’ follow-up for the RBMT-3 and goal attainment, but remained only for goal attainment at 12 months’ follow-up. There were no differences between arms in mood or quality of life. The qualitative results suggested positive experiences of participating in the trial and of attending the groups. Participants reported that memory rehabilitation was not routinely accessible in usual care. The primary health economics outcome at 12 months found memory rehabilitation to be £26.89 cheaper than usual care but less effective, with an incremental QALY loss of 0.007. Differences in costs and effects were not statistically significant and non-parametric bootstrapping demonstrated considerable uncertainty in these findings. No safety concerns were raised and no deaths were reported.LimitationsAs a pragmatic trial, we had broad inclusion criteria and, therefore, there was considerable heterogeneity within the sample. The study was not powered to perform further subgroup analyses. Participants and therapists could not be blinded to treatment allocation.ConclusionsThe group memory rehabilitation delivered in this trial is very unlikely to lead to clinical benefits or to be a cost-effective treatment for people with TBI in the community. Future studies should examine the selection of participants who may benefit most from memory rehabilitation.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN65792154.FundingThis project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full inHealth Technology Assessment; Vol. 23, No. 16. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Funder

Health Technology Assessment programme

Publisher

National Institute for Health Research

Subject

Health Policy

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3