This study examined the roles of personal and social changes on the relationship between injury severity and life satisfaction among individuals with acquired brain injury (ABI). Personal change (i.e. having developed a survivor identity, identity strength), social changes (i.e. improved social relationships, support from services), injury severity (i.e. length of time in coma) and well-being (i.e. life satisfaction) were assessed in a sample of 630 individuals with ABIs. A counterintuitive positive relationship was found between injury severity and life satisfaction. Bootstrapping analyses indicated that this relationship was mediated by personal and social changes. Although identity strength was the strongest individual mediator, both personal and social changes each explained unique variance in this relationship. These findings suggest that strategies that strengthen personal identity and social relationships may be beneficial for individuals recovering from ABIs.

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in ; Vol. 22, No. 33. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Objective: This systematic review sought evidence concerning the effectiveness of peer mentoring for people with traumatic brain injury. Data sources:Fourteen electronic databases were searched, including PsycINFO, MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library, from inception to September 21 2016. Ten grey literature databases, PROSPERO, two trials registers, reference lists and author citations were also searched. Review methods:Studies which employed a model of one-to-one peer mentoring between traumatic brain injury survivors were included. Two reviewers independently screened all titles and abstracts before screening full texts of shortlisted studies. A third reviewer resolved disagreements. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed studies for quality and risk of bias. Results:The search returned 753 records, including one identified through hand searching. 495 records remained after removal of duplicates and 459 were excluded after screening. Full texts were assessed for the remaining 36 studies and six met the inclusion criteria. All were conducted in the United States between 1996 and 2012 and employed a variety of designs including two randomised controlled trials. 288 people with traumatic brain injury participated in the studies. No significant improvements in social activity level or social network size were found, but significant improvements were shown in areas including behavioural control, mood, coping and quality of life. Conclusion:There is limited evidence for the effectiveness of peer mentoring after traumatic brain injury. The available evidence comes from small-scale studies, of variable quality, without detailed information on the content of sessions or the 'active ingredient' of the interventions.

Background Rehabilitation research does not always improve patient outcomes because of difficulties implementing complex health interventions. Identifying barriers and facilitators to implementation fidelity is critical. Not reporting implementation issues wastes research resources and risks erroneously attributing effectiveness when interventions are not implemented as planned, particularly progressing from single to multicentre trials. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and Conceptual Framework for Implementation Fidelity (CFIF) facilitate identification of barriers and facilitators. This review sought to identify barriers and facilitators (determinants) affecting implementation in trials of complex rehabilitation interventions for adults with long-term neurological conditions (LTNC) and describe implementation issues. Methods Implementation, complex health interventions and LTNC search terms were developed. Studies of all designs were eligible. Searches involved 11 databases, trial registries and citations. After screening titles and abstracts, two reviewers independently shortlisted studies. A third resolved discrepancies. One reviewer extracted data in two stages; 1) descriptive study data, 2) units of text describing determinants. Data were synthesised by (1) mapping determinants to CFIF and CFIR and (2) thematic analysis. Results Forty-three studies, from 7434 records, reported implementation determinants; 41 reported both barriers and facilitators. Most implied determinants but five used implementation theory to inform recording. More barriers than facilitators were mapped onto CFIF and CFIR constructs. “Patient needs and resources”, “readiness for implementation”, “knowledge and beliefs about the intervention”, “facilitation strategies”, “participant responsiveness” were the most frequently mapped constructs. Constructs relating to the quality of intervention delivery, organisational/contextual aspects and trial-related issues were rarely tapped. Thematic analysis revealed the most frequently reported determinants related to adherence, intervention perceptions and attrition. Conclusions This review has described the barriers and facilitators identified in studies implementing complex interventions for people with LTNCs. Early adoption of implementation frameworks by trialists can simplify identification and reporting of factors affecting delivery of new complex rehabilitation interventions. It is vital to learn from previous experiences to prevent unnecessary repetitions of implementation failure at both trial and service provision levels. Reported facilitators can provide strategies for overcoming implementation issues. Reporting gaps may be due to the lack of standardised reporting methods, researcher ignorance and historical reporting requirements. Systemic review registration PROSPERO CRD42015020423