Ms Melissa Brunner

Objective: The aims of this study were to: (a) determine how Twitter is used by people with traumatic brain injury (TBI) and TBI organisations, (b) analyse the Twitter networks and content of tweets tagged with TBI-related hashtags, and (c) identify any challenges people with TBI encounter in using Twitter. Research Design: Mixed methods in a Twitter hashtag study. Methods: Mixed methods in a Twitter hashtag study. Tweets tagged with TBI-related hashtags were harvested from the Twitter website over a one-month period in 2016 and analysed qualitatively and quantitatively. Results: The sample of 29,199 tweets included tweets sent by 893 @users, 219 of whom had a brain injury. Twitter was used to: (a) discuss health issues, (b) raise awareness of TBI, (c) talk about life after TBI, (d) talk about sport and concussion, and (e) communicate inspirational messages. Conclusions: Twitter is an important platform for research and knowledge translation on TBI, and for hearing the voices of people with TBI as they express their personal views and stories of living with TBI and become more visible and influential in Twitter communities. TBI clinicians could use these narratives of people with TBI in Twitter to develop more effective and personally meaningful rehabilitation goals.

Purpose: To review the literature on communication technologies in rehabilitation for people with a traumatic brain injury (TBI), and: (a) determine its application to cognitive-communicative rehabilitation, and b) develop a model to guide communication technology use with people after TBI. Method: This integrative literature review of communication technology in TBI rehabilitation and cognitive-communication involved searching nine scientific databases and included 95 studies. Results: Three major types of communication technologies (assistive technology, augmentative and alternative communication technology, and information communication technology) and multiple factors relating to use of technology by or with people after TBI were categorized according to: (i) individual needs, motivations and goals; (ii) individual impairments, activities, participation and environmental factors; and (iii) technologies. While there is substantial research relating to communication technologies and cognitive rehabilitation after TBI, little relates specifically to cognitive-communication rehabilitation. Conclusions: Further investigation is needed into the experiences and views of people with TBI who use communication technologies, to provide the ¿user¿ perspective and influence user-centred design. Research is necessary to investigate the training interventions that address factors fundamental for success, and any impact on communication. The proposed model provides an evidence-based framework for incorporating technology into speech pathology clinical practice and research.

Objective: To identify literature which discusses the barriers and enablers of eHealth technology and which evaluates its role in facilitating interdisciplinary team work for the care of people with a traumatic brain injury (TBI). Design: Systematic review. Data sources: Studies were identified by searching CINAHL, Embase, Medline, PsycINFO, Scopus, and Web of Science. Study selection: Studies included in the review were required to feature an eHealth intervention which assisted interdisciplinary care for people with TBI. Data extraction: Descriptive data for each study described the eHealth intervention, interdisciplinary team, outcomes, and barriers and facilitators in implementing eHealth interventions. Results: The search resulted in 1389 publications, of which 35 were retrieved and scanned in full. Six studies met all the inclusion criteria for the review. Four different eHealth interventions were identified: (i) an electronic goals systems, (ii) telerehabilitation, (iii) videoconferencing, and (iv) a point-of-care team-based information system. Various barriers and facilitators were identified in the use of eHealth. Conclusion: eHealth interventions have been reported to support interdisciplinary teams for the care of TBI. However, there is a substantial gap in existing literature regarding the barriers and enablers which characterize a successful interdisciplinary eHealth model for people with TBI.

Despite the shift towards collaborative healthcare and the increase in the use of eHealth technologies, there does not currently exist a model for the measurement of eHealth readiness in interdisciplinary healthcare teams. This research aims to address this gap in the literature through the development of a three phase methodology incorporating qualitative and quantitative methods. We propose a conceptual measurement model consisting of operationalized themes affecting readiness across four factors: (i) Organizational Capabilities, (ii) Team Capabilities, (iii) Patient Capabilities, and (iv) Technology Capabilities. The creation of this model will allow for the measurement of the readiness of interdisciplinary healthcare teams to use eHealth technologies to improve patient outcomes.

Objectives: To compare in-person with videoconferencing administration of a communication questionnaire for people with traumatic brain injury (TBI) and their close others. Design: Repeated-measures design with randomized order of administration. Participants: Twenty adults with severe TBI and their close others. Methods: Both participants with TBI and their close others completed the La Trobe Communication Questionnaire (LCQ) via interview with a clinician, once via Skype and once during a home visit. Measures: Total LCQ score and time taken for completion. Results: There were no significant differences between videoconferencing and in-person conditions in the total scores or time taken to complete the questionnaire. Conclusions: Videoconferencing-based administration of the LCQ is as reliable and efficient as in-person administration.

Speech-language pathology outcomes following stroke are poorly understood, and potential predictors of these, such as age and therapy input have not been well documented. For 12 months, the Australian Therapy Outcome Measures (AusTOMs) for Speech Pathology scales were used to rate swallowing and language outcomes for patients (n=63) receiving rehabilitation post stroke. Outcomes were compared by service type (inpatient versus home based), amount of input and patient age. Greatest improvement was seen on the Swallowing scale. There was no difference in outcomes of inpatients compared to home based rehabilitation patients. There was a trend towards better outcomes with increasing input for the Swallowing scale and for Participation Restriction and Distress/Wellbeing domains. Patients less than 75 years of age had better Participation Restriction and Distress/Wellbeing outcomes, compared to older patients. These results align with previous studies, suggesting that inpatient and home based service models may be equally effective post stroke. Therapy input and patient age were related to some, but not all, domains of the AusTOMs, and these results may have implications for patient management. They should also direct future research to further explore these relationships; for example, to identify optimal input to achieve best outcomes. © 2008 Informa UK Ltd All rights reserved.