The relation between resilience and mild traumatic brain injury (TBI) outcome has been theorized but empirical studies have been scarce. This systematic review aimed to describe the research in this area. Electronic databases (Medline, CINAHL, PsychINFO, SPORTdiscus, and PILOTS) were searched from inception to August 2015 for studies in which resilience was measured following TBI. The search terms included 'TBI' 'concussion' 'postconcussion' 'resilience' and 'hardiness'. Inclusion criteria were peer reviewed original research reports published in English, human participants aged 18 years and over with brain injury, and an accepted definition of mild TBI. Hand searching of identified articles was also undertaken. Of the 71 studies identified, five studies were accepted for review. These studies were formally assessed for risk of bias by two independent reviewers. Each study carried a risk of bias, most commonly a detection bias, but none were excluded on this basis. A narrative interpretation of the findings was used because the studies reflected fundamental differences in the conceptualization of resilience. No studies employed a trajectory based approach to measure a resilient outcome. In most cases, the eligible studies assessed trait resilience with a scale and used it as a predictor of outcome (postconcussion symptoms). Three of these studies showed that greater trait resilience was associated with better mild TBI outcomes (fewer symptoms). Future research of the adult mild TBI response that predicts a resilient outcome is encouraged. These studies could yield empirical evidence for a resilient, and other possible mild TBI outcomes.

In general, diagnostic terminology did not affect anticipated PCS symptoms 6 months after injury, but other outcomes were affected. Given that these diagnostic terms are used interchangeably, this study suggests that changing terminology can influence known contributors to poor mTBI outcome.

This study aimed to determine if systematic variation of the diagnostic terminology embedded within written discharge information (i.e., concussion or mild traumatic brain injury, mTBI) would produce different expected symptoms and illness perceptions. We hypothesized that compared to concussion advice, mTBI advice would be associated with worse outcomes. Sixty-two volunteers with no history of brain injury or neurological disease were randomly allocated to one of two conditions in which they read a mTBI vignette followed by information that varied only by use of the embedded terms concussion (n = 28) or mTBI (n = 34). Both groups reported illness perceptions (timeline and consequences subscale of the Illness Perception Questionnaire-Revised) and expected Postconcussion Syndrome (PCS) symptoms 6 months post injury (Neurobehavioral Symptom Inventory, NSI). Statistically significant group differences due to terminology were found on selected NSI scores (i.e., total, cognitive and sensory symptom cluster scores (concussion > mTBI)), but there was no effect of terminology on illness perception. When embedded in discharge advice, diagnostic terminology affects some but not all expected outcomes. Given that such expectations are a known contributor to poor mTBI outcome, clinicians should consider the potential impact of varied terminology on their patients.

The content, style, readability and usefulness of written mTBI discharge advice was highly variable. The provision of written information to patients with mTBI is advised, but this variability in materials highlights the need for evaluation before distribution. Areas are identified to guide the improvement of written mTBI discharge advice.