Comparison of a Cognitive-Behavioral Coping Skills Group to a Peer Support Group in a Brain Injury Population

Neurobehavioral Initiation and Motivation Problems After Acquired Brain Injury

“…In a sample of 100 patients, 78% of the long-term goals set by the participants were achieved, indicating that goal-directed activity was successfully accomplished. On the other hand, in a study with brain injury subjects comparing cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and a peer support group (70), no significant improvements in functioning were found for either group on the subscales "executive dysfunction" and "apathy" of the Frontal Systems Behavior Scale. It is clear that further studies, specifically investigating the effectiveness of apathy treatment in individuals with ABI (of non-progressive nature), are needed.…”

Investigation of a New Couples Intervention for Individuals With Brain Injury: A Randomized Controlled Trial

“…Behavioral Therapy (CBT) has been one of the most widely used approaches to help individuals with BI and caregivers develop more adaptive appraisals and utilize appropriate problem-solving strategies. [34][35] Use of Dialectical Behavior Strategies have also demonstrated efficacy when treating individuals 27 and couples 26 without BI with emotional dysregulation. Additionally, John…”

“…49 Finally, comparison of an attention control group is recommended for future investigations to examine if changes are directly attributable to the treatment intervention or to group support, as has been demonstrated in other studies. 35 Reviews of marital intervention studies in the general population and mental health groups are documented. 57 Marital issues after BI and the need for appropriate interventions are Running Head: INTERVENTION TO IMPROVE RELATIONSHIPS AFTER BI 16 well-documented.…”

Interventions to enhance coping after traumatic brain injury: A systematic review

“…All eight included studies were judged to have a moderately high risk of bias (see table 2). Features increasing the risk of bias were: absence of relevant baseline characteristics (Hanks et al, 2012), not fully concealed allocation (Hsieh et al, 2012), patients serving as their own controls (Anson and Ponsford, 2006b;c;Wolters et al, 2010), matching of (non-randomized) groups (Bradbury et al, 2008;Tiersky et al, 2005), high levels of attrition which was not adequately accounted for (Backhaus et al, 2010; Tiersky et al, 2005) and/or outcome measures which were not formally validated (Backhaus et al, 2016;Backhaus et al, 2010).…”