3.9 Article

A pilot study examining effects of group-based Cognitive Strategy Training treatment on self-reported cognitive problems, psychiatric symptoms, functioning, and compensatory strategy use in OIF/OEF combat veterans with persistent mild cognitive disorder and history of traumatic brain injury

期刊

出版社

JOURNAL REHAB RES & DEV
DOI: 10.1682/JRRD.2009.02.0019

关键词

blast injury; cognitive aids; cognitive rehabilitation; combat veterans; compensatory strategies; Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF); Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF); postconcussive syndrome; posttraumatic stress disorder; traumatic brain injury

资金

  1. VA Rehabilitation Research and Development Service Merit Review Study [B5060R]
  2. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MENTAL HEALTH [R01MH080150] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We aimed to determine whether group-based Cognitive Strategy Training (CST) for combat veterans with mild cognitive disorder and a history of traumatic brain injury (TBI) has significant posttreatment effects on self-reported compensatory strategy usage, functioning, and psychiatric symptoms. Participants included 21 veterans returning from conflicts in Iraq or Afghanistan with a diagnosis of Cognitive Disorder, Not Otherwise Specified and a history of combat-related TBI. Participants attended 6- to 8-week structured CST groups designed to provide them training in and practice with a variety of compensatory cognitive strategies, including day planner usage. Of the participants, 16 completed pre- and posttreatment assessment measures. Following CST, participants reported significantly increased use of compensatory cognitive strategies and day planners; an increased perception that these strategies were useful to them; increased life satisfaction; and decreased depressive, memory, and cognitive symptom severity. Group-based CST is a promising intervention for veterans with mild cognitive disorder, and randomized controlled trials are required to further evaluate its efficacy.

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

3.9
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