Bret T Howrey1, James E Graham2, Monique R Pappadis2, Carl V Granger3, Kenneth J Ottenbacher2. 1. Department of Family Medicine, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, TX. Electronic address: bthowrey@utmb.edu. 2. Division of Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, TX. 3. Department of Neurology, School of Medical and Biomedical Sciences, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine trajectories of functional recovery after rehabilitation for traumatic brain injury (TBI). DESIGN: Prospective study. SETTING: Inpatient rehabilitation hospitals in the Uniform Data System for Medical Rehabilitation. PARTICIPANTS: A subset of individuals receiving inpatient rehabilitation services for TBI from 2002 to 2010 who also had postdischarge measurement of functional independence (N=16,583). INTERVENTIONS: Inpatient rehabilitation. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES: Admission, discharge, and follow-up data were obtained from the Uniform Data System for Medical Rehabilitation. We used latent class mixture models to examine recovery trajectories for both cognitive and motor functioning as measured by the FIM instrument. RESULTS: Latent class models identified 3 trajectories (low, medium, high) for both cognitive and motor FIM subscales. Factors associated with membership in the low cognition trajectory group included younger age, male sex, racial/ethnic minority, Medicare or Medicaid (vs commercial or other insurance), comorbid conditions, and greater duration from injury date to rehabilitation admission date. Factors associated with membership in the low motor trajectory group included older age, racial/ethnic minority, Medicare or Medicaid coverage, comorbid conditions, open head injury, and greater duration to admission. CONCLUSIONS: Standard approaches to assessing recovery patterns after TBI obscure differences between subgroups with trajectories that differ from the overall mean. Select demographic and clinical characteristics can help classify patients with TBI into distinct functional recovery trajectories, which can enhance both patient-centered care and quality improvement efforts.
OBJECTIVE: To examine trajectories of functional recovery after rehabilitation for traumatic brain injury (TBI). DESIGN: Prospective study. SETTING: Inpatient rehabilitation hospitals in the Uniform Data System for Medical Rehabilitation. PARTICIPANTS: A subset of individuals receiving inpatient rehabilitation services for TBI from 2002 to 2010 who also had postdischarge measurement of functional independence (N=16,583). INTERVENTIONS: Inpatient rehabilitation. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES: Admission, discharge, and follow-up data were obtained from the Uniform Data System for Medical Rehabilitation. We used latent class mixture models to examine recovery trajectories for both cognitive and motor functioning as measured by the FIM instrument. RESULTS: Latent class models identified 3 trajectories (low, medium, high) for both cognitive and motor FIM subscales. Factors associated with membership in the low cognition trajectory group included younger age, male sex, racial/ethnic minority, Medicare or Medicaid (vs commercial or other insurance), comorbid conditions, and greater duration from injury date to rehabilitation admission date. Factors associated with membership in the low motor trajectory group included older age, racial/ethnic minority, Medicare or Medicaid coverage, comorbid conditions, open head injury, and greater duration to admission. CONCLUSIONS: Standard approaches to assessing recovery patterns after TBI obscure differences between subgroups with trajectories that differ from the overall mean. Select demographic and clinical characteristics can help classify patients with TBI into distinct functional recovery trajectories, which can enhance both patient-centered care and quality improvement efforts.
Authors: Juan Carlos Arango-Lasprilla; Mitchell Rosenthal; John Deluca; Eugene Komaroff; Mark Sherer; David Cifu; Robin Hanks Journal: Brain Inj Date: 2007-06 Impact factor: 2.311
Authors: Margaret A Struchen; Monique R Pappadis; Diana K Mazzei; Allison N Clark; Lynne C Davis; Angelle M Sander Journal: Brain Inj Date: 2008-11 Impact factor: 2.311
Authors: Anthony Lequerica; Denise Krch; Jean Lengenfelder; Nancy Chiaravalloti; Juan Carlos Arango-Lasprilla; Flora M Hammond; Therese M O'Neil-Pirozzi; Paul B Perrin; Angelle M Sander Journal: Brain Inj Date: 2015-09-18 Impact factor: 2.311
Authors: Ronald T Seel; Ryan S Barrett; Cynthia L Beaulieu; David K Ryser; Flora M Hammond; Nora Cullen; William Garmoe; Teri Sommerfeld; John D Corrigan; Susan D Horn Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2015-08 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Raquel C Gardner; Jing Cheng; Adam R Ferguson; Ross Boylan; John Boscardin; Ross D Zafonte; Geoffrey T Manley Journal: J Neurotrauma Date: 2019-05-24 Impact factor: 5.269
Authors: Laraine Winter; Janell L Mensinger; Helene J Moriarty; Keith M Robinson; Michelle McKay; Benjamin E Leiby Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-04-28 Impact factor: 4.964
Authors: Noelle E Carlozzi; Michael A Kallen; Phillip A Ianni; Elizabeth A Hahn; Louis M French; Rael T Lange; Tracey A Brickell; Robin Hanks; Angelle M Sander Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2018-08-25 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Amanda R Rabinowitz; Raj G Kumar; Adam Sima; Umesh M Venkatesan; Shannon B Juengst; Therese M O'Neil-Pirozzi; Thomas K Watanabe; Yelena Goldin; Flora M Hammond; Laura E Dreer Journal: J Neurotrauma Date: 2021-07-20 Impact factor: 4.869
Authors: Emily Evans; Roee Gutman; Linda Resnik; Mark R Zonfrillo; Stephanie N Lueckel; Raj G Kumar; Frank DeVone; Kristen Dams-O'Connor; Kali S Thomas Journal: J Head Trauma Rehabil Date: 2021 May-Jun 01 Impact factor: 3.117