4.4 Review

Traumatic brain injury education for adult patients and families: a scoping review

期刊

BRAIN INJURY
卷 32, 期 11, 页码 1295-1306

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/02699052.2018.1493226

关键词

Brain injuries; patient education; family education; self-management

资金

  1. National Institute on Disability, Independent Living and Rehabilitation Research (NIDILRR) [90DP0037, 90DPTB0004, 90DP0045, 90DPTB0013, 90DP0038, 90DPTB0009, 90DP0028, 90DPT0016, 90DP0012, 90DP0082]
  2. National Institute on Aging [P30 AG024832]
  3. NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON AGING [P30AG024832] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is increasingly viewed as a chronic condition, bringing long-term needs for patient and caregiver knowledge pertaining to symptom and problem management over time. In light of these needs, we performed a scoping review of the literature on brain injury education provided to adult patients and/ or family members affected by TBI. Objectives were to describe the types of educational interventions that have been developed; to review the effects of these interventions; and to determine gaps that might be filled by future research efforts. Of 88 articles meeting search criteria and subjected to data extraction, 34 concerned education about mild TBI and 54, moderate to severe TBI. Most mild TBI articles focused on education in the Emergency Room, while most moderate/severe TBI education was directed toward family members/caregivers and was frequently combined with other treatment components, making the effects of education difficult to discern. Only 1 article incorporated elements of self-management training (SMT), a model proved effective in other chronic health conditions. We recommend further exploration of SMT principles in long-term TBI care, as well as more precise definition of treatment components in all patient and family interventions, so that the specific effects of education and other treatment elements may be more readily evaluated.

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

4.4
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