Background Virtual reality (VR) is increasingly being used for the assessment and treatment of impairments arising from acquired brain injuries (ABIs) due to perceived benefits over traditional methods. However, no tailored options exist for the design and implementation of VR for ABI rehabilitation and, more specifically, traumatic brain injury (TBI) rehabilitation. In addition, the evidence base lacks systematic reviews of immersive VR use for TBI rehabilitation. Recommendations for this population are important because of the many complex and diverse impairments that individuals can experience. Objective This study aims to conduct a two-part systematic review to identify and synthesize existing recommendations for designing and implementing therapeutic VR for ABI rehabilitation, including TBI, and to identify current evidence for using immersive VR for TBI assessment and treatment and to map the degree to which this literature includes recommendations for VR design and implementation. Methods This review was guided by PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses). A comprehensive search of 11 databases and gray literature was conducted in August 2019 and repeated in June 2020. Studies were included if they met relevant search terms, were peer-reviewed, were written in English, and were published between 2009 and 2020. Studies were reviewed to determine the level of evidence and methodological quality. For the first part, qualitative data were synthesized and categorized via meta-synthesis. For the second part, findings were analyzed and synthesized descriptively owing to the heterogeneity of data extracted from the included studies. Results In the first part, a total of 14 papers met the inclusion criteria. Recommendations for VR design and implementation were not specific to TBI but rather to stroke or ABI rehabilitation more broadly. The synthesis and analysis of data resulted in three key phases and nine categories of recommendations for designing and implementing VR for ABI rehabilitation. In the second part, 5 studies met the inclusion criteria. A total of 2 studies reported on VR for assessment and three for treatment. Studies were varied in terms of therapeutic targets, VR tasks, and outcome measures. VR was used to assess or treat impairments in cognition, balance, and anxiety, with positive outcomes. However, the levels of evidence, methodological quality, and inclusion of recommendations for VR design and implementation were poor. Conclusions There is limited research on the use of immersive VR for TBI rehabilitation. Few studies have been conducted, and there is limited inclusion of recommendations for therapeutic VR design and implementation. Future research in ABI rehabilitation should consider a stepwise approach to VR development, from early co-design studies with end users to larger controlled trials. A list of recommendations is offered to provide guidance and a more consistent model to advance clinical research in this area.
Qualitative analysis provides a new insight into the conversational topics of individuals with severe TBI. Many participants engaged in appropriate conversations and discussed mutually important topics with familiar communication partners. Findings may inform speech-language pathology intervention in sub-acute recovery to improve conversational discourse abilities of individuals with severe TBI and support their communication partners.
BACKGROUNDExploring the perceptions of individuals with traumatic brain injury (TBI) towards their brain injury recovery across the continuum of care may offer insights to support engagement with rehabilitation services. Illness narratives are a potentially valuable avenue for examining perceptions of recovery that may influence engagement.AIMSThe aim of this study is to explore the perspective of individuals with severe TBI towards their communication, brain injury and recovery experiences at 6 months, 1 year and 2 years post‐injury.METHODS & PROCEDURESDiscourse samples were obtained from 12 participants with severe TBI at 6 months, 1 year and 2 years following injury. A standardised protocol was used to elicit responses relating to perceptions of communication, the brain injury narrative, and perceptions of recovery facilitators. A thematic analysis of the discourse samples was completed.OUTCOMES & RESULTSThree overarching themes were identified: experiences of communication recovery are diverse (Theme 1), varied experiences of recovery and rehabilitation (Theme 2), and continuous and lifelong journey of recovery (Theme 3). Primary communication concerns included presence of anomia, dysarthria, conversational topic difficulties, impacts of fatigue and memory difficulties. Illness narratives revealed the importance of re‐establishing a sense of self and the perceived importance of a strong social network post‐injury.CONCLUSIONS & IMPLICATIONSThe varied nature of communication challenges and recovery after TBI highlights the need for holistic, multidisciplinary support as well as inclusion of family and friends in the recovery process. Social communication intervention is a perceived priority area for individuals with TBI. Illness narratives may also play a valuable role in therapy and help to shape post‐injury identity. Managing the impacts of fatigue on communication and encouraging individuals to take ownership over their recovery and treatment may also help to improve patient outcomes. Supporting individuals to construct positive brain injury narratives that reaffirm a sense of self and include perspectives of family and friends may offer a potential future avenue for rehabilitation. Tailored but flexible, team‐based service delivery models for individuals with TBI that span from acute to long‐term care are warranted.What this study adds?What is already known on this subject Communication recovery from traumatic brain injury (TBI) is complex and multifaceted. The perceptions of individuals with TBI toward their communication recovery is largely unknown. To establish rehabilitation services that meet the needs of these individuals, we need to understand how they experience communication recovery.What this paper adds to existing knowledge Social communication interventions were perceived as a priority for intervention by individuals with TBI. Fatigue was identified as perceived barrier to communication recovery. Taking ownership over one's recovery process was revealed as a facilitator of recovery. Illness narratives were found to strengthen post‐injury identity over time.What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work? Speech pathologists should prioritise social communication interventions and fatigue management for communication. Facilitating ownership of the recovery process and offering long‐term supports are key aspects of treatment. Supporting positive illness narratives as part of treatment may facilitate post‐injury identity construction.
BACKGROUND Virtual reality (VR) is increasingly being used for the assessment and treatment of impairments arising from acquired brain injuries (ABIs) due to perceived benefits over traditional methods. However, no tailored options exist for the design and implementation of VR for ABI rehabilitation and, more specifically, traumatic brain injury (TBI) rehabilitation. In addition, the evidence base lacks systematic reviews of immersive VR use for TBI rehabilitation. Recommendations for this population are important because of the many complex and diverse impairments that individuals can experience. OBJECTIVE This study aims to conduct a two-part systematic review to identify and synthesize existing recommendations for designing and implementing therapeutic VR for ABI rehabilitation, including TBI, and to identify current evidence for using immersive VR for TBI assessment and treatment and to map the degree to which this literature includes recommendations for VR design and implementation. METHODS This review was guided by PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses). A comprehensive search of 11 databases and gray literature was conducted in August 2019 and repeated in June 2020. Studies were included if they met relevant search terms, were peer-reviewed, were written in English, and were published between 2009 and 2020. Studies were reviewed to determine the level of evidence and methodological quality. For the first part, qualitative data were synthesized and categorized via meta-synthesis. For the second part, findings were analyzed and synthesized descriptively owing to the heterogeneity of data extracted from the included studies. RESULTS In the first part, a total of 14 papers met the inclusion criteria. Recommendations for VR design and implementation were not specific to TBI but rather to stroke or ABI rehabilitation more broadly. The synthesis and analysis of data resulted in three key phases and nine categories of recommendations for designing and implementing VR for ABI rehabilitation. In the second part, 5 studies met the inclusion criteria. A total of 2 studies reported on VR for assessment and three for treatment. Studies were varied in terms of therapeutic targets, VR tasks, and outcome measures. VR was used to assess or treat impairments in cognition, balance, and anxiety, with positive outcomes. However, the levels of evidence, methodological quality, and inclusion of recommendations for VR design and implementation were poor. CONCLUSIONS There is limited research on the use of immersive VR for TBI rehabilitation. Few studies have been conducted, and there is limited inclusion of recommendations for therapeutic VR design and implementation. Future research in ABI rehabilitation should consider a stepwise approach to VR development, from early co-design studies with end users to larger controlled trials. A list of recommendations is offered to provide guidance and a more consistent model to advance clinical research in this area. CLINICALTRIAL
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.