Assessing and categorizing health-related quality of life outcomes in children and youth with acquired brain injury in outpatient rehabilitation.
Florian Allonsius, Celine de Mooij, Arend de Kloet and 2 others
PMID 42304568WHAT IT FOUND
Young people referred to rehabilitation after acquired brain injury reported much lower quality of life than healthy Dutch peers, especially for school and work.
Young adults fared worst. The authors propose cut-offs to make these scores quicker to interpret at intake.
Key findings
01Total quality-of-life scores at referral were below healthy Dutch peer norms in all three age groups, by 19.13 points in children, 19.38 in adolescents and 26.56 in young adults, on a scale where lower is worse.
02Most patients scored more than two standard deviations below healthy peers, which the paper labels severely diminished: 59.1% of children, 52.1% of adolescents and 60.8% of young adults.
03School or work functioning was the lowest-scoring area in every age group, and half or more of each group fell in the most severe category for it: 50.5% of children, 52.8% of adolescents and 64.7% of young adults.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTsWhat it means for OTs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The comparison with healthy peers is descriptive only. The healthy comparison data were available as published summary numbers, so no statistical test could be run and no P values or confidence intervals are reported. Healthy peer data existed only for self-report, so parents' views of their child's quality of life are missing from the comparison. Only 51 people were in the 18 to 25 group, so the finding that young adults fare worst is the least certain. Some centres rarely take patients over 18, so more disabled young adults may have gone to adult services and never been counted. Time since injury was not recorded consistently across centres, so the study cannot say whether how long ago the injury happened relates to quality of life. The questionnaire sat near the end of a long online battery and people could stop at any point; those who did were excluded, and the researchers could not check whether they differed from those who finished. Brain injury severity was unknown for some patients with traumatic brain injury because hospital Glasgow Coma Scale scores were not always available. For those with unknown severity, centres confirmed there had been no loss of consciousness and they were counted as mild. Slightly more participants were female (54.7%) than male, which may not match traumatic brain injury populations generally. The sample had already been referred for persistent problems needing multidisciplinary rehabilitation, so the share in the most severe band is not how common this is among all young people with acquired brain injury. Self-reported scores can be affected by mood, motivation, or how the person felt on the day of filling in the questionnaire. The four-band classification is a proposal. The authors say it still needs to be tested prospectively and followed over time before its clinical use is clear.
Declared interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship or publication of the article. The work was funded by Hersenstichting, the Dutch Brain Foundation.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read the proportions here as how common severely diminished quality of life is after acquired brain injury in childhood. These young people had already been referred because of persistent difficulties needing multidisciplinary rehabilitation, and the authors state plainly that these category proportions are not prevalence estimates for all young people with acquired brain injury.
Summarised by AI from the full paper, without a clinician reviewing it. Check it against the source before it changes what you do. Read it on PubMed →