Psychosocial assessment in brain injury: An international social work survey.

OBJECTIVE: To survey social workers in the field of traumatic brain injury (TBI)/acquired brain injury (ABI) about their practice in conducting psychosocial assessments. Design: A cross-sectional quality assurance study. DESIGN: A cross-sectional quality assurance study. PARTICIPANTS: Social workers from professional social work rehabilitation networks spanning Sweden, the United Kingdom, North America, and Asia Pacific regions. MEASURE: Purpose-designed survey comprising closed and open items, organized into six sections and administered electronically. RESULTS: The 76 respondents were mainly female (65/76, 85.5%) from nine countries (majority from Australia, United States, Canada). Two-thirds of respondents were employed in outpatient/ community settings (51/76, 67.1%), with the balance working in inpatient/rehabilitation hospital settings. Over 80% of respondents conducted psychosocial assessments, with the assessments informed by a systemic focus, situating the individual within their broader family and societal networks. The top five issues identified in inpatient/rehabilitation settings were housing related needs, informed consent for treatment, caregiver support, financial issues and navigating the treatment system. In contrast, the leading issues identified in community settings related to emotional regulation, treatment resistance and compliance issues, depression, and self-esteem. DISCUSSION: Social workers assessed a broad range of psychosocial issues spanning individual, family, and environmental contextual factors. Findings will contribute to future development of a psychosocial assessment framework.

Social workers and acquired brain injury: A systematic review of the current evidence-base.

Social work plays an important role in the assessment and treatment of people with acquired brain injury. Acquired brain injury is a complex and highly prevalent condition which can impact on cognitive, emotional and social domains. As acquired brain injury is a hidden disability it can be misdiagnosed or classified as another condition entirely. We sought to systematically explore the evidence base to examine how social workers have been prepared to work with their clients with brain injury. Employing six electronic databases (Social Policy & Practice, Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL Plus) we reviewed 1071 papers. After applying eligibility criteria 17 papers were included in this review. We utilised standardised data extraction and quality appraisal tools to assess all included papers. Following appraisal, 9 papers were judged as possessing high methodological quality whilst 8 were judged as medium. Employing narrative synthesis, we identified four themes which captured the key findings of these papers. Themes were named as (i) advocacy and social work (ii) training and multidisciplinary team working (iii) inclusion of social networks and (iv) societal barriers. In order to meet their statutory responsibilities to practice safely, social workers must receive training in how to identify ABI and develop understanding of its consequences and subsequent need for provision. Social workers are also in a unique position to advocate for their clients and should make every effort to ensure their needs are met.

Social work-generated evidence in traumatic brain injury from 1975 to 2014: A systematic scoping review.

The International Network for Social Workers in Acquired Brain Injury (INSWABI) commissioned a systematic scoping review to ascertain the social work-generated evidence base on people with traumatic brain injury (TBI) of working age. The review aimed to identify the output, impact and quality of publications authored by social workers on this topic. Study quality was evaluated through assessment frameworks drawn from the United Kingdom National Service Framework for Long-Term Conditions. In the 40-year period from 1975 to 2014, 115 items were published that met the search criteria (intervention studies, n = 10; observational studies, n = 52; literature reviews, n = 6; expert opinion or policy analysis, n = 39; and others, n = 8). The publications could be grouped into five major fields of practice: families, social inclusion, military, inequalities and psychological adjustment. There was a significant increase in the number of publications over each decade. Impact was demonstrated in that the great majority of publications had been cited at least once (80.6%, 103/115). Articles published in rehabilitation journals were cited significantly more often than articles published in social work journals. A significant improvement in publication quality was observed across the four decades, with the majority of studies in the last decade rated as high quality.