Order #340739 Topic: RESEARCH ON PICO QUESTION
tutorthammy
Research_Literature_Matrix_-_Copy.docxRunning Head: RESEARCH LITERATURE MATRIX
RESEARCH LITERATURE MATRIX 5
Research Literature Matrix
Research Literature Matrix
PICO Question: Therapy in traumatic brain injured patients is more effective on cognitive rehabilitation than physical rehabilitation in improving patient’s recovery
|
Study (author(s), year); Study design |
Subject characteristics (P) |
Intervention or exposure; How this was measured in the study |
Outcome(s); How this was measured in the study |
Key Results |
Limitations to the study |
|
Callender, L., Brown, R., Driver, S., Dahdah, M., Collinsworth, A., & Shafi, S. (2017). Systematic review and evidence-based review |
Sample size: Not indicated Gender: both male and female Age: over 18 years Health status: Traumatic brain injury under rehabilitative care Comparison group: No brain injury
|
Checking patients with disturbing brain wound. Rehabilitation of individuals guideline for clinical practice. proof-based drug.
|
Experience of the clinicians. Hospital characteristics. Patient characteristics Processes of care |
Findings of the best clinical practice were listed. Practices to be shared with representatives and stakeholders so they can agree. |
A systematic review was limited by publication date thus only included published data. Also, used different research methods in individual recommendations for TBI diagnosis. |
|
Horn, S. D., Corrigan, J. D., Bogner, J., Hammond, F. M., Seel, R. T., Smout, R. J., & Whiteneck. (2015) Prospective and longitudinal observational study design. |
Sample size: n=2130 Gender: both male and female Age: >18 years Health status: traumatic brain injury Comparison group:
|
Not applicable |
Care for rehabilitation. Time is taken in rehabilitation. Measuring the functions, you can handle independently at discharge. 9-months post rehospitalization.
|
The degree of acceptance creation of similar subgroups for future investigation of the best treatment composition. Notable dislikes in injury as well as patient features, therapy, rehabilitation goals and results by admission FIM attention unions. |
Inadequate proof to notify what schedule of involvement should be. Less clear how functional gains during inpatient can be assigned to distinct rehabilitation treatments and involvements. Check the number that should be assigned to age, natural healing as changed by brain wound seriousness and patient pre-lesion characteristics? |
|
Guillamondegui, O., Montgomery, S., Phibbs, F., McPheeters, M., Alexander, P., Jerome, R. & Salomon, R. (2011). Prospective, longitudinal observational study
|
Sample size: n ≥ 50 Gender: both male and female Age: Adults aged ≥18 years old Health status: traumatic brain injury patients who are diagnosed with depression in adulthood Comparison group: Participants with no treatment. Placebo
|
Individual/ group psychotherapy. Community- based rehabilitation. Neuromodulation therapy. Neuropsychological rehabilitation. |
Symptom status Additional treatment Standard of life Harms Affairs of daily life. Repetition of depression. |
Found that long and short-term results of a therapy are being brain wounded are changed by the person himself. Pre-existing mental health status. |
Studies from only one publication language. Considered developed nations only. Understanding those people identified with sadness following an adulthood traumatic brain lesion leaving out other groups.
|
Comparison of each study results
The results of each study were different but they had a relationship, for instance, the first article came up with the best clinical practices and shared them with involved stakeholders such as clinical management and partners for them to acquire agreement (Callender, Brown, Driver, Dahdah, Collinsworth, & Shafi, 2017). Furthermore, a study by Horn, Bogner, Hammond, Seel, Corrigan, Smout, & Whiteneck (2015), found that noteworthy dislikes among injury and patient features, therapy, rehabilitation goal were caused by acknowledgment of functional independent measures (FIM). According to Guillamondegui & Montgomery (2011), long and short-term results of a therapy of brain injured are as a result of personal pre-existing mental health conditions. All these results from the three studies agree that individuals suffering from traumatic brain injury are the main solution to their problem, that is, their behavior determines their medical condition.
Major methodological differences between the studies
The studies by Horn et al. (2015) and Guillamondegui et al. (2011), used the same study designs i.e. both Prospective and longitudinal observational study design. However, the other study used different study designs namely Systematic review and evidence-based review (Callender et al., 2017). Their sample size differed having the study by Horn et al. (2015) with the highest sample size of 2130, followed by that of Guillamondegui et al. (2011) with sample size (n) ≥ 50 although Callender et al. (2017) had not included its sample size. All the studies health status characteristics were the same that is, individual diagnosed with traumatic brain injury, the age was similar in all of them that is, equal or over 18 years old and they all included both genders. Unfortunately, the study differed in the way they were measured, for example, the study by Callender et al. (2017), measured its results by looking at the experience of the clinicians, hospital characteristics, patient characteristics and processes of care. Additionally, another study used symptom status, quality of life, additional treatment, harms, recurrence and activities of daily living to measure the outcomes (Guillamondegui et al., 2011). Besides, the study by Horn et al. (2015) used the functional independence measure after discharge, rehabilitation length of stay and post-rehospitalization to measure the outcomes.
In conclusion, the research literature matrix has indicated three research articles that address the PICO question ‘Therapy in traumatic brain injured patients is more effective on cognitive rehabilitation than physical rehabilitation in improving patient’s recovery’. Each article has been analyzed using different factors such as its author (s), study design, subject characteristics, intervention, outcomes, key results, and their limitation. The factors used for each study were compared with one another and described both their comparisons and differences.
References
Callender, L., Brown, R., Driver, S., Dahdah, M., Collinsworth, A., & Shafi, S. (2017). Process for developing rehabilitation practice recommendations for individuals with traumatic brain injury. BMC Neurology, 17(1), 54.
Guillamondegui, O. D., Montgomery, S. A., Phibbs, F. T., McPheeters, M. L., Alexander, P. T., Jerome, R. N., ... & Salomon, R. M. (2011). Traumatic brain injury and depression.
Horn, S. D., Corrigan, J. D., Bogner, J., Hammond, F. M., Seel, R. T., Smout, R. J., ... & Whiteneck, G. G. (2015). Traumatic Brain Injury–Practice-Based Evidence study: design and patients, centers, treatments, and outcomes. Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation, 96(8), S178-S196.
Santos, C. M. D. C., Pimenta, C. A. D. M., & Nobre, M. R. C. (2007). The PICO strategy for the research question construction and evidence search. Revista Latino-americana de enfermagem, 15(3), 508-511.
