Rasch Analysis of the Mayo-Portland Adaptability Inventory for Posthospital Brain Injury Rehabilitation.

OBJECTIVES: (1) Reexamine the item structure and reliability of the Mayo-Portland Adaptability Inventory (4th ed; MPAI-4) through Rasch analysis of admission and discharge scores for a large sample of adults with acquired brain injury (ABI) who participated in various types of posthospital brain injury rehabilitation (PHBIR) programs; (2) compare differential item functioning (DIF) for traumatic brain injury (TBI), stroke and other ABI; and (3) explore the viability of more specific subscales in addition to the established indices. SETTING: Data from Residential Neurobehavioral, Residential Neurorehabilitation, Home and Community, Day Treatment, and Outpatient rehabilitation programs serving individuals with ABI. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 2154 individuals with TBI, stroke, or other ABI. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of de-identified admission and discharge data from the Foundation to Advance Brain Rehabilitation (FABR) consortium database. MAIN MEASURE: MPAI-4. RESULTS: After adjusting 4 misfitting items and eliminating 20 misfitting persons, the MPAI-4 demonstrated real person reliability/separation = 0.93/3.52 and real item reliability/separation = 1.00/24.02. Independent Rasch analyses by diagnostic category found similar reliabilities and separations. Residual item correlations and principal component analysis of residuals (PCAR) indicated areas of local dependence arranged hierarchically reflecting the full-scale item hierarchy and providing the basis for 3 new subscales of Physical Abilities, Cognitive Abilities, and Autonomy. DIF across diagnostic categories revealed differences in item elevations characteristic of typical patients in each category. Measure means and SDs were very similar across categories. CONCLUSIONS: MPAI-4 items demonstrate very good person and item reliabilities for individuals with TBI, stroke, and other ABI at a level that supports individual evaluation. Variations in item calibrations across diagnostic categories reflect the differential characteristics of typical patients within categories. The entire measure provides an overall assessment of common sequalae of ABI, and standard indices used in combination with newly derived subscales provide more specific assessments of rehabilitation needs for treatment planning.

Distinguishing Characteristics of Admissions to Various Types of Posthospital Brain Injury Rehabilitation Programs.

OBJECTIVE: Describe and compare the demographic characteristics and disability profiles of individuals admitted to 6 types of posthospital brain injury rehabilitation (PHBIR) programs. SETTING: Data from Residential Neurobehavioral, Residential Neurorehabilitation, Home and Community Neurorehabilitation, Day Treatment, Outpatient Neurorehabilitation, and Supported Living programs serving individuals with acquired brain injury (ABI). PARTICIPANTS: Two thousand twenty-eight individuals with traumatic brain injury (TBI), stroke, or other ABI. MAIN MEASURES: Sex, age, time since injury, and Mayo-Portland Adaptability Inventory, 4th edition (MPAI-4). DESIGN: Retrospective analyses of demographic variables and MPAI-4 Total, Index, and subscale Rasch-derived T-scores on admission comparing diagnostic categories and program types within diagnostic categories. RESULTS: Participants with TBI were predominantly male, and those with stroke were generally older. Admissions to more intensive and supervised programs (residential neurobehavioral and residential neurorehabilitation) generally showed greater disability than admissions to home and community programs who were more disabled than participants in day treatment and outpatient programs. Residential neurobehavioral and supported living program participants generally were male and had TBI. Home and community admissions tended to be more delayed than residential neurorehabilitation admissions. The majority of those with other ABI were admitted to outpatient rather than more intensive programs. Additional analyses demonstrated significant differences in MPAI-4 profiles among the various program types. CONCLUSIONS: Admissions with TBI, stroke, and other ABI to PHBIR differ in demographic factors and disability profiles. When examined within each diagnostic category, demographic features and disability profiles also distinguish among admissions to the various program types. Results provide insights about decision-making in referral patterns to various types of PHBIR programs, although other factors not available for analysis (eg, participant/family preference, program, and funding availability) likely also contribute to admission patterns.

Evaluation of Posthospital Brain Injury Rehabilitation Outcomes With Quasi-Experimental Controls.

OBJECTIVE: To further evaluate, using quasi-experimental methodologies, posthospital brain injury rehabilitation outcomes described in an accompanying report of a large observational study (n = 2120). SETTING: Data from Intensive Rehabilitation (IR: Residential Neurobehavioral, Residential Neurorehabilitation, Home and Community Neurorehabilitation, Day Treatment, Outpatient Neurorehabilitation) and Supported Living (SL) programs serving individuals with acquired brain injury (ABI). PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred twenty-eight individuals with traumatic brain injury, stroke, or other ABI in propensity score analysis; 1344 in analysis by extent of recommended treatment completed (TC) rating. MAIN MEASURES: Sex, age, time since injury, Mayo-Portland Adaptability Inventory-4th edition (MPAI-4) Rasch-derived T-scores, and TC rating. DESIGN: Analyses of covariance (1) of discharge MPAI-4 Total, index, and subscale T-scores on propensity score-matched samples of IR and SL participants controlling for admission scores and (2) of MPAI-4 T-scores by TC rating and diagnostic category. RESULTS: Propensity score-matched groups showed superior outcomes for IR participants compared to SL participants on MPAI-4 Total T-score (F = 77.21, P < .001; partial η2 = 0.257) and all MPAI-4 index and subscale T-scores controlling for sex, age, and baseline scores. Participants with traumatic brain injury and stroke who completed the recommended course of rehabilitation had superior outcomes on all MPAI-4 T-scores compared to those who completed less than or much less than the recommended treatment. No additional benefit was apparent for those who completed more than the recommended course. The association between TC rating and outcome was not significant for the other ABI group. CONCLUSIONS: These analyses using quasi-experimental controls provide more scientifically rigorous evidence of the benefit of IR provided through posthospital brain injury rehabilitation programs after acute inpatient care, consistent with the results of numerous observational studies. However, improved internal validity limits external validity and generalization. The absence of a significant association between TC rating and outcomes for the other ABI group most likely reflects the difficulty prescribing rehabilitation for this highly heterogeneous group.

Outcomes of Six Specific Types of Post-Hospital Brain Injury Rehabilitation Programs.

OBJECTIVE: Evaluate outcomes of intensive posthospital brain injury rehabilitation programs compared to supported living (SL) programs; explore variations in outcome by diagnostic category (traumatic brain injury, stroke, and other acquired brain injury [ABI]) and specific program type. SETTING: Data were obtained from Residential Neurobehavioral, Residential Neurorehabilitation, Home and Community Neurorehabilitation, Day Treatment, Outpatient Neurorehabilitation, and SL programs serving individuals with ABI. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 2120 individuals with traumatic brain injury, stroke, or other ABI participated in this study. MAIN MEASURES: The main measures are sex, age, time since injury, and Mayo-Portland Adaptability Inventory (4th edition; MPAI-4). DESIGN: Retrospective analyses of demographic variables and MPAI-4 Total, index, and subscale Rasch-derived T-scores on admission and discharge. RESULTS: Gains on MPAI-4  Total T-scores were significantly greater for the intensive rehabilitation (IR) group in comparison to stable functioning in the SL group (F = 236.69, P < .001, partial η2 = .101) while controlling for admission/time 1 scores; similar results were found for MPAI-4 indices and subscales. For the IR cohort, discharge scores differed by diagnostic category after controlling for admission scores for the Total MPAI-4 T-score (F = 22.65, P < .001, partial η2 = .025), as well as all indices and subscales. A statistically significant interaction between program type and diagnostic group on discharge MPAI-4 Total T-scores (F = 2.55, P = .018, partial η2 = .01) after controlling for admission scores indicated that differing outcomes across diagnoses also varied by program type. Varying significant main effects and interactions were apparent for MPAI-4 indices and subscales with generally small effect sizes. CONCLUSIONS: Significant gains on MPAI-4 variables across IR program types compared to no change over a comparable period of time for SL programs supports the effectiveness of posthospital brain injury rehabilitation. This finding in the presence of small effect sizes on outcome variables for program type and for significant interactions between program type and diagnostic category suggests that participants generally were appropriately matched to program type and benefited from interventions provided through specific program types.

Assessing the benefits and risks of amantadine for irritability and aggression after traumatic brain injury.

OBJECTIVE: To quantify the benefits versus harms of amantadine in the treatment of irritability and aggression following traumatic brain injury. METHODS: Secondary outcome data from a randomized controlled multisite trial of amantadine 100 mg twice daily were used to calculate number-needed-to-treat (NNT). Given prior findings of positive clinician-perceived effects and low incidence of adverse events, we hypothesized low number-needed-to-treat for benefit (NNTB; high benefit) and high number-needed-to-treat for harm (NNTH; low risk) based on the clinician ratings, supporting the use of amantadine in clinical practice. Specifically, NNTB values were calculated using number of individuals with improvement on the Clinician Global Impressions-Global Improvement scale (GI). NNTH values were computed using number of individuals with worsening on the GI and experiencing serious and any adverse events. RESULTS: Based on clinician ratings, on average for every six patients treated with amantadine rather than placebo, one extra patient would be expected to improve (NNTB = 6.4; 95% confidence interval [CI]: [3.3-76.8]). More participants in the placebo group worsened than in the amantadine group, but the result was not statistically significant (NNTH = -92.4; 95% CI: [NNTB -32.9 to infinity to NNTH -19.2]). The amantadine and placebo groups did not differ on the numbers of adverse events experienced during the trial. CONCLUSION: Clinician ratings suggest modest benefit of amantadine 100 mg twice daily with low risk to appropriately selected patients with adequate renal clearance. Thus, amantadine should be considered a treatment option for the experienced brain injury clinician. These data may support treatment decisions when a pharmaceutical agent is being considered to control irritability/aggression.