Use of the Progressive Return to Activity Guidelines May Expedite Symptom Resolution After Concussion for Active Duty Military.

BACKGROUND: Clinical recommendations for concussion management encourage reduced cognitive and physical activities immediately after injury, with graded increases in activity as symptoms resolve. Empirical support for the effectiveness of such recommendations is needed. PURPOSE: To examine whether training medical providers on the Defense and Veterans Brain Injury Center's Progressive Return to Activity Clinical Recommendation (PRA-CR) for acute concussion improves patient outcomes. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. METHODS: This study was conducted from 2016 to 2018 and compared patient outcomes before and after medical providers received an educational intervention (ie, provider training). Patients, recruited either before or after intervention, were assessed at ≤72 hours, 1 week, 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months after a concussion. The participant population included 38 military medical providers and 106 military servicemembers with a diagnosed concussion and treated by one of the military medical providers: 58 patient participants received care before the intervention (ie, provider training) and 48 received care after intervention. The primary outcome measure was the Neurobehavioral Symptom Inventory. RESULTS: The patients seen before and after the intervention were predominantly male (89.7% and 93.8%, respectively) of military age (mean ± SD, 26.62 ± 6.29 years and 25.08 ± 6.85 years, respectively) and a mean ± SD of 1.92 ± 0.88 days from injury. Compared with patients receiving care before intervention, patients receiving care after intervention had smaller increases in physical activities (difference in mean change; 95% CI, 0.39 to 6.79) and vestibular/balance activities (95% CI, 0.79 to 7.5) during the first week of recovery. Although groups did not differ in symptoms at ≤72 hours of injury (d = 0.22; 95% CI, -2.21 to 8.07), the postintervention group reported fewer symptoms at 1 week (d = 0.61; 95% CI, 0.52 to 10.92). Postintervention patients who completed the 6-month study had improved recovery both at 1 month (d = 1.55; 95% CI, 5.33 to 15.39) and 3 months after injury (d = 1.10; 95% CI, 2.36 to 11.55), but not at 6 months (d = 0.35; 95% CI, 5.34 to 7.59). CONCLUSION: Training medical providers on the PRA-CR for management of concussion resulted in expedited recovery of patients.

A Comparison of Four Computerized Neurocognitive Assessment Tools to a Traditional Neuropsychological Test Battery in Service Members with and without Mild Traumatic Brain Injury.

OBJECTIVE: Computerized neurocognitive assessment tools (NCATS) are often used as a screening tool to identify cognitive deficits after mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI). However, differing methodology across studies renders it difficult to identify a consensus regarding the validity of NCATs. Thus, studies where multiple NCATs are administered in the same sample using the same methodology are warranted. METHOD: We investigated the validity of four NCATs: the ANAM4, CNS-VS, CogState, and ImPACT. Two NCATs were randomly assigned and a battery of traditional neuropsychological (NP) tests administered to healthy control active duty service members (n = 272) and to service members within 7 days of an mTBI (n = 231). Analyses included correlations between NCAT and the NP test scores to investigate convergent and discriminant validity, and regression analyses to identify the unique variance in NCAT and NP scores attributed to group status. Effect sizes (Cohen's f2) were calculated to guide interpretation of data. RESULTS: Only 37 (0.6%) of the 5,655 correlations calculated between NCATs and NP tests are large (i.e. r ≥ 0.50). The majority of correlations are small (i.e. 0.30 > r ≥ 0.10), with no clear patterns suggestive of convergent or discriminant validity between the NCATs and NP tests. Though there are statistically significant group differences across most NCAT and NP test scores, the unique variance accounted for by group status is minimal (i.e. semipartial R2 ≤ 0.033, 0.024, 0.062, and 0.011 for ANAM4, CNS-VS, CogState, and ImPACT, respectively), with effect sizes indicating small to no meaningful effect. CONCLUSION: Though the results are not overly promising for the validity of the four NCATs we investigated, traditional methods of investigating psychometric properties may not be appropriate for computerized tests. We offer several conceptual and methodological considerations for future studies regarding the validity of NCATs.

Use of a multi-level mixed methods approach to study the effectiveness of a primary care progressive return to activity protocol after acute mild traumatic brain injury/concussion in the military.

The large number of U.S. service members diagnosed with concussion/mild traumatic brain injury each year underscores the necessity for clear and effective clinical guidance for managing concussion. Relevant research continues to emerge supporting a gradual return to pre-injury activity levels without aggravating symptoms; however, available guidance does not provide detailed standards for this return to activity process. To fill this gap, the Defense and Veterans Brain Injury Center released a recommendation for primary care providers detailing a step-wise return to unrestricted activity during the acute phase of concussion. This guidance was developed in collaboration with an interdisciplinary group of clinical, military, and academic subject matter experts using an evidence-based approach. Systematic evaluation of the guidance is critical to ensure positive patient outcomes, to discover barriers to implementation by providers, and to identify ways to improve the recommendation. Here we describe a multi-level, mixed-methods approach to evaluate the recommendation incorporating outcomes from both patients and providers. Procedures were developed to implement the study within complex but ecologically-valid settings at multiple military treatment facilities and operational medical units. Special consideration was given to anticipated challenges such as the frequent movement of military personnel, selection of appropriate design and measures, study implementation at multiple sites, and involvement of multiple service branches (Army, Navy, and Marine Corps). We conclude by emphasizing the need to consider contemporary approaches for evaluating the effectiveness of clinical guidance.

Test-retest reliability of four computerized neurocognitive assessment tools in an active duty military population.

Computerized neurocognitive assessment tools (NCATs) are increasingly used for baseline and post-concussion assessments. To date, NCATs have not demonstrated strong test-retest reliabilities. Most studies have used non-military populations and different methodologies, complicating the determination of the utility of NCATs in military populations. The test-retest reliability of four NCATs (Automated Neuropsychological Assessment Metrics 4 [ANAM4], CNS-Vital Signs, CogState, and Immediate Post-Concussion Assessment and Cognitive Test [ImPACT]) was investigated in a healthy active duty military sample. Four hundred and nineteen Service Members were randomly assigned to take one NCAT and 215 returned after approximately 30 days for retest. Participants deemed to have inadequate effort during one or both testing sessions, according to the NCATs scoring algorithms, were removed from analyses. Each NCAT had at least one reliability score (intraclass correlation) in the "adequate" range (.70-.79), only ImPACT had one score considered "high" (.80-.89), and no scores met "very high" criteria (.90-.99). However, overall test-retest reliabilities in four NCATs in a military sample are consistent with reliabilities reported in the literature and are lower than desired for clinical decision-making.