4.3 Article

Perceived needs following traumatic brain injury

Journal

JOURNAL OF HEAD TRAUMA REHABILITATION
Volume 19, Issue 3, Pages 205-216

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/00001199-200405000-00002

Keywords

behavioral control; cognitive problems; employment; needs; traumatic brain injury

Funding

  1. PHS HHS [IC 09900] Funding Source: Medline
  2. ODCDC CDC HHS [U17 CCU 812447] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: (1) Provide population-based estimates of perceived needs following traumatic brain injury (TBI) and the prevalence of unmet needs 1 year postinjury; (2) identify relations among needs that define unique clusters of individuals; and (3) identify risk factors for experiencing selected needs. Design: Telephone survey 1 year after injury of a prospective cohort of all people hospitalized with TBI in the state of Colorado during 2000. Measures: Self-reported need for assistance in 13 areas of functioning. Results: A total of 58.8% of persons hospitalized with TBI experienced at least 1 need during the year following injury; 40.2% will experience at least 1 unmet need 1 year after injury. Most frequently experienced needs were improving your memory, solving problems better(34.1%), managing stress, emotional upsets (27.9%), and managing your money, paying bills (23.3%). Cluster analysis revealed 8 distinctive groupings of subjects. If a need existed, those least likely to be met involved cognitive abilities, employment, and alcohol and/or drug use. Conclusions: Results were consistent with findings from previous assessments of need for services based on surveys of convenience samples; however, the prevalence of unmet needs 1 year after injury may be higher than previously suspected. More post-hospital services addressing cognitive and emotional problems appear needed. Risk factors for experiencing needs suggest potential avenues for clinical intervention.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available