Background: The dimensionality of depression and anxiety instruments have recently been a source of controversy. Objectives and Design: In a European-wide sample of patients after Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), we aim to examine the factorial structure, validity, and association of the Patient Health Questionnaire for depression (PHQ-9) and the Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD-7) instruments. This study is based on longitudinal observational data. We conducted analyses of factorial structure and discriminant validity of outcomes six-months after TBI. We also examined the prevalence, co-occurrence, and changes of scores on the PHQ-9 and GAD-7 at 3-, 6-, and 12-month post-TBI assessments. Participants: At six-months post-TBI assessment, 2137 (738 (34.5%) women) participants completed the PHQ-9 and GAD-7 questionnaires. For the longitudinal analysis, we had 1922 participants (672 (35.0%) women). Results: The results of exploratory factor analysis suggested a general latent construct underlying both PHQ-9 and GAD-7 measures. Confirmatory factor analyses showed a slight improvement in the fit indices for the bifactorial model. The Omega hierarchical test clearly differentiated two subfactors of PHQ-9 and GAD-7 items over and above the underlying general factor; however, most of the variance (85.0%) was explained by the general factor and the explained variance of the subfactors was small. The PHQ-9 and GAD-7 performed similarly in detecting post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). As defined by conventional cut-offs, depression and anxiety have different prevalence rates in the sample. The scales also differed in their relationships with the short form of health survey (SF-36v2) subscales. The longitudinal analysis showed high stability of depression and anxiety symptoms: 49–67% of the post-TBI patients with comorbid depression and anxiety reported the persistence of the symptoms over time. Discussion: The factorial structure analysis favors a general latent construct underlying both depression and anxiety scales among patients after TBI. We discuss the implications our findings and future research directions.

IntroductionThe strength of evidence underpinning care and treatment recommendations in traumatic brain injury (TBI) is low. Comparative effectiveness research (CER) has been proposed as a framework to provide evidence for optimal care for TBI patients. The first step in CER is to map the existing variation. The aim of current study is to quantify variation in general structural and process characteristics among centers participating in the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) study.MethodsWe designed a set of 11 provider profiling questionnaires with 321 questions about various aspects of TBI care, chosen based on literature and expert opinion. After pilot testing, questionnaires were disseminated to 71 centers from 20 countries participating in the CENTER-TBI study. Reliability of questionnaires was estimated by calculating a concordance rate among 5% duplicate questions.ResultsAll 71 centers completed the questionnaires. Median concordance rate among duplicate questions was 0.85. The majority of centers were academic hospitals (n = 65, 92%), designated as a level I trauma center (n = 48, 68%) and situated in an urban location (n = 70, 99%). The availability of facilities for neuro-trauma care varied across centers; e.g. 40 (57%) had a dedicated neuro-intensive care unit (ICU), 36 (51%) had an in-hospital rehabilitation unit and the organization of the ICU was closed in 64% (n = 45) of the centers. In addition, we found wide variation in processes of care, such as the ICU admission policy and intracranial pressure monitoring policy among centers.ConclusionEven among high-volume, specialized neurotrauma centers there is substantial variation in structures and processes of TBI care. This variation provides an opportunity to study effectiveness of specific aspects of TBI care and to identify best practices with CER approaches.

Rapid and profound changes anticipated in the future of work will have significant implications for the education and training of occupational safety and health (OSH) professionals and the workforce. As the nature of the workplace, work, and the workforce change, the OSH field must expand its focus to include existing and new hazards (some yet unknown), consider how to protect the health and well-being of a diverse workforce, and understand and mitigate the safety implications of new work arrangements. Preparing for these changes is critical to developing proactive systems that can protect workers, prevent injury and illness, and promote worker well-being. An in-person workshop held on February 3–4, 2020 at The University of Texas Health Science Center (UTHealth) School of Public Health in Houston, Texas, USA, examined some of the challenges and opportunities OSH education will face in both academic and industry settings. The onslaught of the COVID-19 global pandemic reached the United States one month after this workshop and greatly accelerated the pace of change. This article summarizes presentations from national experts and thought leaders across the spectrum of OSH and professionals in the fields of strategic foresight, systems thinking, and industry, and provides recommendations for the field.

Background: In patients with severe brain injury, withdrawal of life-sustaining measures (WLSM) is common in intensive care units (ICU). WLSM constitutes a dilemma: instituting WLSM too early could result in death despite the possibility of an acceptable functional outcome, whereas delaying WLSM could unnecessarily burden patients, families, clinicians, and hospital resources. We aimed to describe the occurrence and timing of WLSM, and factors associated with timing of WLSM in European ICUs in patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI). Methods:The CENTER-TBI Study is a prospective multi-center cohort study. For the current study, patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) admitted to the ICU and aged 16 or older were included. Occurrence and timing of WLSM were documented. For the analyses, we dichotomized timing of WLSM in early (< 72 h after injury) versus later (≥ 72 h after injury) based on recent guideline recommendations. We assessed factors associated with initiating WLSM early versus later, including geographic region, center, patient, injury, and treatment characteristics with univariable and multivariable (mixed effects) logistic regression.Results: A total of 2022 patients aged 16 or older were admitted to the ICU. ICU mortality was 13% (n = 267). Of these, 229 (86%) patients died after WLSM, and were included in the analyses. The occurrence of WLSM varied between regions ranging from 0% in Eastern Europe to 96% in Northern Europe. In 51% of the patients, WLSM was early. Patients in the early WLSM group had a lower maximum therapy intensity level (TIL) score than patients in the later WLSM group (median of 5 versus 10) The strongest independent variables associated with early WLSM were one unreactive pupil (odds ratio (OR) 4.0, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.3-12.4) or two unreactive pupils (OR 5.8, CI 2.6-13.1) compared to two reactive pupils, and an Injury Severity Score (ISS) if over 41 (OR per point above 41 = 1.1, CI 1.0-1.1). Timing of WLSM was not significantly associated with region or center. Conclusion:WLSM occurs early in half of the patients, mostly in patients with severe TBI affecting brainstem reflexes who were severely injured. We found no regional or center influences in timing of WLSM. Whether WLSM is always appropriate or may contribute to a self-fulfilling prophecy requires further research and argues for reluctance to institute WLSM early in case of any doubt on prognosis.

No abstract