Developing a targeted, theory-informed implementation intervention using two theoretical frameworks to address health professional and organisational factors: a case study to improve the management of mild traumatic brain injury in the emergency department.

BACKGROUND: Despite the availability of evidence-based guidelines for the management of mild traumatic brain injury in the emergency department (ED), variations in practice exist. Interventions designed to implement recommended behaviours can reduce this variation. Using theory to inform intervention development is advocated; however, there is no consensus on how to select or apply theory. Integrative theoretical frameworks, based on syntheses of theories and theoretical constructs relevant to implementation, have the potential to assist in the intervention development process. This paper describes the process of applying two theoretical frameworks to investigate the factors influencing recommended behaviours and the choice of behaviour change techniques and modes of delivery for an implementation intervention. METHODS: A stepped approach was followed: (i) identification of locally applicable and actionable evidence-based recommendations as targets for change, (ii) selection and use of two theoretical frameworks for identifying barriers to and enablers of change (Theoretical Domains Framework and Model of Diffusion of Innovations in Service Organisations) and (iii) identification and operationalisation of intervention components (behaviour change techniques and modes of delivery) to address the barriers and enhance the enablers, informed by theory, evidence and feasibility/acceptability considerations. We illustrate this process in relation to one recommendation, prospective assessment of post-traumatic amnesia (PTA) by ED staff using a validated tool. RESULTS: Four recommendations for managing mild traumatic brain injury were targeted with the intervention. The intervention targeting the PTA recommendation consisted of 14 behaviour change techniques and addressed 6 theoretical domains and 5 organisational domains. The mode of delivery was informed by six Cochrane reviews. It was delivered via five intervention components : (i) local stakeholder meetings, (ii) identification of local opinion leader teams, (iii) a train-the-trainer workshop for appointed local opinion leaders, (iv) local training workshops for delivery by trained local opinion leaders and (v) provision of tools and materials to prompt recommended behaviours. CONCLUSIONS: Two theoretical frameworks were used in a complementary manner to inform intervention development in managing mild traumatic brain injury in the ED. The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the developed intervention is being evaluated in a cluster randomised trial, part of the Neurotrauma Evidence Translation (NET) program.

Effects of concomitant spinal cord injury and brain injury on medical and functional outcomes and community participation.

BACKGROUND: There are limited data on the interactions between concomitant spinal cord injury (SCI) and traumatic brain injury (TBI) in terms of medical, psychological, functional, and community outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the hypothesis that in addition to SCI-associated sensory-motor impairments, people with dual diagnosis would experience additional TBI-associated cognitive impairments that would have a negative impact on community reintegration. METHODS: Cross-sectional, case-matched study comparing a consecutive sample of participants with dual diagnosis (n = 30) to an SCI group (n = 30) and TBI group (n = 30). Participants who were on average 3.6 years postrehabilitation discharge were interviewed using a battery of standardized outcome measures. RESULTS: Length of rehabilitation stay was significantly longer in SCI and dual diagnosis participants. Fatigue, pain, sexual dysfunction, depression, and sleep disturbances were frequently reported by all groups. Similar levels of anxiety and depression were reported by participants in all groups, however TBI participants reported higher stress levels. All groups achieved mean FIM scores > 100. The dual diagnosis and SCI groups received more daily care and support than TBI participants. Similar levels of community reintegration were achieved by all groups with a high level of productive engagement in work, study, or volunteer activities. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study do not support the hypotheses. Postrehabilitation functioning was better than anticipated in adults with dual diagnosis. The contribution of rehabilitation factors, such as longer admission time to develop compensatory techniques and strategies for adaptation in the community, may have contributed to these positive findings.