Reliability and Sensitivity of a Virtual Assessment Developed for Workplace Concussions: Protocol for a Method-Comparison Study.

BACKGROUND: Workplace mild traumatic brain injuries are frequently associated with persistent symptoms, leading to a reduction in productivity at work or even disability. People who sustain workplace injuries frequently need rehabilitation and support, and the challenges of delivering these services was heightened during the COVID-19 pandemic as injured workers had to be cared for remotely. Currently, clinicians are conducting both in-person and virtual (remote) concussion assessments; however, the measures that are being used to complete these assessments have undocumented psychometric properties. OBJECTIVE: This study will document the psychometric properties of the clinical measures that are being used remotely and their ability to produce similar results to in-person assessments. Specifically, through this method-comparison study, we aim to (1) evaluate the sensitivity of the measures included in a virtual assessment toolkit when compared to an in-person assessment and (2) determine the interrater and intrarater reliabilities of the measures included in a virtual assessment toolkit. METHODS: Patient participants (people living with acquired brain injuries) will attend two assessments (in person and virtual) at the Ottawa Hospital. The two assessments will be identical, consisting of the measures included in our previously developed virtual concussion assessment toolkit, which includes finger-to-nose testing, the Vestibular/Ocular Motor Screening tool, balance testing, cervical spine range of motion, saccades testing, and evaluation of effort. All virtual assessments will occur using the Microsoft Teams platform and will be audio/video-recorded. The clinician assessor and patient participant will complete a feedback form following completion of the assessments. A different clinician will also document the findings on observed videos of the virtual assessment shortly after completion of both in-person and virtual assessments and approximately 1 month later. Interrater reliability will be assessed by comparing the second clinician's observation with the first clinician's initial virtual assessment. Intrarater reliability will be evaluated by comparing the second clinician's observation with their own assessment approximately 1 month later. Sensitivity will be documented by comparing the findings (identification of abnormality) of the in-person assessment completed by the initial clinician assessor with those of the second clinician assessor on the observation of the recording of the virtual assessment. RESULTS: As of May 2024, we have recruited 7 clinician assessors and completed study assessments with 39 patient participants. The study recruitment is expected to be completed by September 2024. CONCLUSIONS: Currently, it is unknown if completing concussion assessments virtually produces similar results to the in-person assessment. This work will serve as a first step to determining the similarity of the virtual assessment to the matching in-person assessment and will provide information on the reliability of the virtual assessment. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/57663.

What to Measure in Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Haemorrhage Research-An International Delphi Survey.

Aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage (aSAH) is a devastating condition with high mortality and morbidity. The outcome measures used in aSAH clinical research vary making it challenging to compare and combine different studies. Additionally, there may be a mismatch between the outcomes prioritized by patients, caregivers, and health care providers and those selected by researchers. We conducted an international, online, multiple round Delphi study to develop consensus on domains (where a domain is a health concept or aspect) prioritized by key stakeholders including those with lived experience of aSAH, health care providers, and researchers, funders, or industry professionals. One hundred seventy-five people participated in the survey, 59% of whom had lived experience of aSAH. Over three rounds, 32 domains reached the consensus threshold pre-defined as 70% of participants rating the domain as being critically important. During the fourth round, participants ranked the importance of each of these 32 domains. The top ten domains ranked highest to lowest were (1) Cognition and executive function, (2) Aneurysm obliteration, (3) Cerebral infarction, (4) Functional outcomes including ability to walk, (5) Delayed cerebral ischemia, (6) The overall quality of life as reported by the SAH survivor, (7) Changes to emotions or mood (including depression), (8) The basic activities of daily living, (9) Vasospasm, and (10) ICU complications. Our findings confirm that there is a mismatch between domains prioritized by stakeholders and outcomes used in clinical research. Our future work aims to address this mismatch through the development of a core outcome set in aSAH research.