IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0211684.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Post-traumatic stress disorder and self-reported outcomes after traumatic brain injury in victims of assault

Author

Listed:
  • Dominic Bown
  • Antonio Belli
  • Kasim Qureshi
  • David Davies
  • Emma Toman
  • Rachel Upthegrove

Abstract

Introduction: Assault is the third most common cause of traumatic brain injury (TBI), after falls and road traffic collisions. TBI can lead to multiple long-term physical, cognitive and emotional sequelae, including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Intentional violence may further compound the psychological trauma of the event, in a way that conventional outcome measures, like the Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS), fail to capture. This study aims to examine the influence of assault on self-reported outcomes, including quality of life and symptoms of PTSD. Methods: Questionnaire were completed by 256 patients attending a TBI clinic, including Quality of Life after Brain Injury (QOLIBRI) and PTSD checklist (PCL-C). Medical records provided demographics, clinical data and aetiology of injury. Subjective outcomes were compared between assault and other causes. Results: Of 202 patients analysed, 21% sustained TBI from assault. There was no difference in severity of injuries between assault and non-assault groups. No relationship was found between self-reported outcomes and TBI severity or GOS. The assault group scored worse in all self-reported questionnaires, with statistically significant differences for measures of PTSD and post-concussion symptoms. However, using threshold scores, the prevalence of PTSD in assaulted patients was not higher than non-assault. After adjusting for age, ethnicity and the presence of extra-cranial trauma, assault did not have a significant effect on questionnaire scores. Exploratory analysis showed that assault and road traffic accidents were associated with significantly worse outcomes compared to falls. Conclusion: Quality of life is significantly related to functional and psychological outcomes after TBI. Assaulted patients suffer from worse self-reported outcomes than other patients, but these differences were insignificant when adjusted for demographic factors. Intentionality behind the traumatic event is likely more important than cause alone. Differences in quality of life and other self-reported outcomes are not reflected by the Glasgow Outcome Scale. This information is useful in arranging earlier and targeted review and support.

Suggested Citation

  • Dominic Bown & Antonio Belli & Kasim Qureshi & David Davies & Emma Toman & Rachel Upthegrove, 2019. "Post-traumatic stress disorder and self-reported outcomes after traumatic brain injury in victims of assault," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(2), pages 1-14, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0211684
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0211684
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0211684
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0211684&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0211684?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0211684. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.