4.5 Review

Traumatic Brain Injury and Long-Term Quality of Life: Findings from an Australian Study

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROTRAUMA
卷 26, 期 10, 页码 1623-1633

出版社

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/neu.2008.0735

关键词

AQoL; SF-36 version 2; traumatic brain injury

资金

  1. Victorian Neurotrauma Initiative
  2. Department of Psychiatry
  3. Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences at The University of Melbourne
  4. Royal Melbourne Hospital

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recent calls have been made for the inclusion of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in traumatic brain injury studies. This study reports the impact of TBI on traditional measures (general health, depression, social isolation, labor force participation), self-assessed health function status using the SF-36 version 2 (SF-36V2), and self-assessed health preference using two generic utility instruments, the assessment of quality of life (AQoL) and the SF6D. A random sample of TBI cases (n = 66) was drawn from a trauma registry and matched (gender, age, education, and relationship status) with non-trauma-exposed cases from a population health survey. All participants were interviewed and the two cohorts compared. When compared with matched comparators, TBI cases experienced worse general health, elevated probabilities of depression, social isolation, and worse labor force participation rates. The TBI-cohort reported worse health status on the SF-36V2. The most affected areas were social function, role emotion, and mental health (effect sizes -0.70 to -0.86). The reported utility values indicative of a HRQoL between 13 and 24% worse than their non-TBI contemporaries (effect sizes -0.80 to -0.81). The findings suggest that TBI has long-term consequences across all aspects of peoples' lives, and that these consequences can be self-assessed using generic instruments. The challenge is to provide and evaluate long-term services targeted at the life areas that those with TBI find particularly difficult.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据