Group Psychosocial Interventions Following Acquired Brain Injury: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Group Process and Outcomes.

IF 5 2区 心理学 Q1 NEUROSCIENCES
Hannah L McGlashan, Kate Thompson, Michael Lam, Tegan Cruwys, Zoe C Walter, Elizabeth Beadle, Catherine Haslam
{"title":"Group Psychosocial Interventions Following Acquired Brain Injury: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Group Process and Outcomes.","authors":"Hannah L McGlashan, Kate Thompson, Michael Lam, Tegan Cruwys, Zoe C Walter, Elizabeth Beadle, Catherine Haslam","doi":"10.1007/s11065-025-09670-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Acquired brain injury can result in disability with direct and indirect consequences for psychosocial functioning. Psychosocial interventions embedded within traditional neurorehabilitation may provide a valuable buffer. While there is evidence of benefits associated with group-based psychosocial interventions, there is no single recommended intervention, despite several different approaches having been trialled. This systematic review aimed to provide a critical appraisal of existing group psychosocial interventions in neurorehabilitation, meta-analyse their efficacy, and explore the contribution of group process to outcomes. Eligible studies were published in English-language peer-reviewed journals and recruited adults with acquired brain injury in receipt of group psychosocial interventions. Outcomes of interest were depression, anxiety, quality of life, emotional distress, community integration, and social support. A systematic search of CINAHL, PsycINFO, Medline, Web of Science and Embase from database inception until 08.07.2024 was conducted. Risk of bias was assessed using the Effective Public Health Practice Project Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies. Effect sizes were calculated using Hedges' g and estimated using a three-level random effects model. Sixty-five studies were included in the systematic review, and 48 were included in the meta-analysis (n = 2653). There was an overall small effect on psychosocial outcomes (Hedges' g = 0.24, 95% CIs [0.16, 0.33]), though none of the included studies satisfactorily analysed group process despite 70% of these studies proclaiming their importance. Overall, there were mixed findings across intervention type and significant heterogeneity. Recommendations for future psychosocial group interventions in neurorehabilitation are provided.</p>","PeriodicalId":49754,"journal":{"name":"Neuropsychology Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neuropsychology Review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11065-025-09670-w","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Acquired brain injury can result in disability with direct and indirect consequences for psychosocial functioning. Psychosocial interventions embedded within traditional neurorehabilitation may provide a valuable buffer. While there is evidence of benefits associated with group-based psychosocial interventions, there is no single recommended intervention, despite several different approaches having been trialled. This systematic review aimed to provide a critical appraisal of existing group psychosocial interventions in neurorehabilitation, meta-analyse their efficacy, and explore the contribution of group process to outcomes. Eligible studies were published in English-language peer-reviewed journals and recruited adults with acquired brain injury in receipt of group psychosocial interventions. Outcomes of interest were depression, anxiety, quality of life, emotional distress, community integration, and social support. A systematic search of CINAHL, PsycINFO, Medline, Web of Science and Embase from database inception until 08.07.2024 was conducted. Risk of bias was assessed using the Effective Public Health Practice Project Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies. Effect sizes were calculated using Hedges' g and estimated using a three-level random effects model. Sixty-five studies were included in the systematic review, and 48 were included in the meta-analysis (n = 2653). There was an overall small effect on psychosocial outcomes (Hedges' g = 0.24, 95% CIs [0.16, 0.33]), though none of the included studies satisfactorily analysed group process despite 70% of these studies proclaiming their importance. Overall, there were mixed findings across intervention type and significant heterogeneity. Recommendations for future psychosocial group interventions in neurorehabilitation are provided.

获得性脑损伤后的群体心理干预:对群体过程和结果的系统回顾和荟萃分析。
获得性脑损伤可导致残疾,对社会心理功能产生直接和间接影响。嵌入传统神经康复中的社会心理干预可能提供有价值的缓冲。虽然有证据表明以群体为基础的社会心理干预有好处,但尽管已经试验了几种不同的方法,但没有单一的推荐干预措施。本系统综述旨在对神经康复中现有的群体心理社会干预进行批判性评估,对其疗效进行荟萃分析,并探讨群体过程对结果的贡献。符合条件的研究发表在英语同行评议期刊上,并招募了接受群体心理干预的后发性脑损伤的成年人。研究结果包括抑郁、焦虑、生活质量、情绪困扰、社区整合和社会支持。系统检索了CINAHL、PsycINFO、Medline、Web of Science和Embase自建库至08.07.2024的数据库。使用定量研究的有效公共卫生实践项目质量评估工具评估偏倚风险。效应量使用Hedges' g计算,并使用三水平随机效应模型进行估计。系统评价纳入65项研究,荟萃分析纳入48项研究(n = 2653)。总体而言,对心理社会结果的影响很小(赫奇斯的g = 0.24, 95% ci[0.16, 0.33]),尽管70%的研究宣称群体过程的重要性,但没有一项纳入的研究令人满意地分析了群体过程。总的来说,不同的干预类型有不同的结果和显著的异质性。对未来神经康复的社会心理团体干预提出了建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Neuropsychology Review
Neuropsychology Review 医学-神经科学
CiteScore
11.00
自引率
1.70%
发文量
36
期刊介绍: Neuropsychology Review is a quarterly, refereed publication devoted to integrative review papers on substantive content areas in neuropsychology, with particular focus on populations with endogenous or acquired conditions affecting brain and function and on translational research providing a mechanistic understanding of clinical problems. Publication of new data is not the purview of the journal. Articles are written by international specialists in the field, discussing such complex issues as distinctive functional features of central nervous system disease and injury; challenges in early diagnosis; the impact of genes and environment on function; risk factors for functional impairment; treatment efficacy of neuropsychological rehabilitation; the role of neuroimaging, neuroelectrophysiology, and other neurometric modalities in explicating function; clinical trial design; neuropsychological function and its substrates characteristic of normal development and aging; and neuropsychological dysfunction and its substrates in neurological, psychiatric, and medical conditions. The journal''s broad perspective is supported by an outstanding, multidisciplinary editorial review board guided by the aim to provide students and professionals, clinicians and researchers with scholarly articles that critically and objectively summarize and synthesize the strengths and weaknesses in the literature and propose novel hypotheses, methods of analysis, and links to other fields.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信