Addressing mental health issues is a core concern in the treatment of people with traumatic brain injury (TBI) and their families. Mental health issues are widespread after TBI and arise whether the injury was sustained in civilian or conflict contexts. In the Guest Editorial, Simon Fleminger outlines key issues and conundrums that arise in the intertwining of mental health problems and TBI, as well as the importance of integrating the treatment of mental health conditions into neurorehabilitation.

Those after traumatic brain injury (TBI) who suffer mental health problems, by which I mean problems that a psychiatrist might understand as falling within their remit, suffer a double whammy. Not only do they suffer the stigma of the disabled, but even within this group they may be stigmatised. It has often been my experience that while families will allow for their injured loved one to be under the care of rehabilitation services, including a psychologist, they baulk at the possibility that their loved one may need psychiatric care. This comes to a head when it comes to detaining a patient, in England and Wales, under the Mental Health Act; this may be vigorously resisted by family because of what they infer this says about their loved one's sanity.

Symptoms of neurobehavioural disability acquired through brain injury, especially aggression, are associated with severe social handicap. Differences in terminology have resulted in varying estimates, but aggressive behaviour disorder appears to be characteristic of survivors at some point in their recovery journey. This paper provides a brief review regarding the prevalence, development and causes of aggression associated with acquired brain injury (ABI), and what can be done to help manage them. The advantages of using standardised measures conceptualised for ABI in the assessment and formulation of aggressive behaviour disorders are especially highlighted. A range of treatment methods and the evidence base relating to these are described. The contribution of pharmacological therapies, cognitive behavioural therapy and behavioural interventions are explored. It is argued that the strongest evidence base is associated with behaviour therapy, especially when carried out in the context of neurobehavioural rehabilitation, and two case studies are described to illustrate the clinical advantages of interventions derived from operant theory. Comparative lack of ABI experts trained in the management of post-acute behaviour disorders remains a limiting factor.

Psychosis following traumatic brain injury (PFTBI) has received modest empirical investigation, and is subsequently poorly understood, identified and treated. The current article reports on consistencies in PFTBI phenomenology according to the existing peer-reviewed literature. The potential for psychotic symptoms post TBI, aetiological propositions, prevalence, significance of onset latency and injury severity, clinical and cognitive neuropsychological presentation and injury localisation/neuroimaging data are reviewed. Substantial methodological limitations associated with the majority of publications informing this work are also discussed. Despite controversies in the literature, psychosis following TBI appears to be three times more prevalent than psychotic disorders in the general population, and comparable in presentation to other idiopathic psychotic spectrum disorders, including schizophrenia.

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is prevalent among veterans and military personnel. These individuals present with increased rates of co-morbid mental health conditions and are at increased risk for suicide. Evidence-based treatments are needed to serve this population. A systematic review was conducted in order to determine the state of the science with respect to interventions aimed at improving mental health outcomes among veterans and military personnel. Results indicate that only three published articles exist that met inclusion criteria for this systematic review. All three study designs were observational in nature. Significant risk of bias was noted. The body of evidence was rated according to the GRADE approach. Although the published work marks an important starting point in evaluating evidence-based treatments for veterans and military personnel with TBI, the overall quality of evidence was determined to be very low. Implications for both future research and current practice are discussed.

Deficits in attention, processing speed and executive functioning are among the most commonly reported and functionally limiting cognitive impairments among individuals with TBI. Changes in mood can exacerbate cognitive deficits and reduce life quality. Contemporary hierarchical models of cognitive functioning suggest that attention/arousal processes underlie and support higher-order functions. Building on decades of clinical research, a synergistic, integrative approach to neurorehabilitation is described, which combines bottom-up and top-town cognitive interventions in addition to psychotherapeutic interventions for mood. This approach is intended to address directly impairments in both foundational (i.e., attention) and higher-order (i.e., executive functions) processes. Executive dysfunction is addressed in a top-down fashion through the application of a series of problem-solving and emotional regulation modules that teach and integrate strategies that can be generalised across situations with practice. Attention, arousal and information processing are necessary prerequisites of successful higher-order thinking, attention skills, and are addressed in a bottom-up fashion through intensive individualised attention and processing training tasks. Combining top-down and bottom-up approaches within a comprehensive day-treatment programme can effect a synergistic improvement of overall functioning.

Depression is one of the most common psychiatric diagnoses among individuals with traumatic brain injury (TBI). Prevalence of post-TBI depression (PTBID) ranges from 12 to 60% and is generally higher than rates reported in the general population. The wide range in reported rates is attributed to methodological variability across studies, including measurement and sampling differences. Several systematic reviews have been published in the past 5 years, reporting on outcomes for depression across different classes of interventions, including pharmacological, biomedical and behavioural. The consensus across reviews is that more research is necessary to develop evidence-based practice guidelines. The present narrative review synthesises the findings of previous studies, focusing on the nature of the interventions, the eligibility criteria for inclusion and the assessment of outcome. Pharmacological studies are generally more rigorous methodologically, but provide mixed findings. Other biomedical interventions are only at the initial stages of research development, including case and pilot studies. The results of behavioural studies are positive regarding improvements in mood. However, the number of efficacy studies of behavioural interventions for depression is extremely limited. Recommendations for designing interventions are provided.

Objective: Review the literature to evaluate the evidence for effective treatment to mitigate substance misuse and substance use disorders (SUD) following traumatic brain injury (TBI).

Design: Systematic review.

Data source: Scopus.

Study eligibility criteria: A study was considered eligible for review if (a) the intended population specifically included persons with TBI; (b) the experimental intervention targeted misuse of alcohol, illegal drugs or prescription drugs; (c) the intervention was compared to the standard of care, control or another intervention; (d) the outcomes under study included substance use or misuse; and (e) the study design was a controlled trial.

Results: Six studies were identified that met the inclusion criteria. Three studies were conducted during the acute phase of recovery using brief interventions, while the remaining three were conducted with individuals in the post-acute phase (usually several years post-injury) using more intensive treatment. All studies were found to be vulnerable to bias due to methodological weaknesses.

Conclusions: While firm conclusions could not be drawn from the results of the studies, each study provided important information about the challenges to conducting SUD intervention trials with persons with TBI. The choices researchers will have to make to address these challenges are delineated.

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is prevalent among many populations and existing data suggest that those with TBI are at increased risk for death by suicide. This systematic review serves as an update to a previous review, with the aim of evaluating the current state of evidence regarding prevalence and risk of suicide deaths, post-TBI suicidal ideation and suicide attempts, and treatments to reduce suicide-related outcomes among TBI survivors. Review procedures followed the PRISMA statement guidelines. In all, 1014 abstracts and 83 full-text articles were reviewed to identify 16 studies meeting inclusion criteria. Risk of bias for individual studies ranged from low to high, and very few studies were designed to examine a priori hypotheses related to suicide outcomes of interest. Overall, findings from this systematic review supported an increased risk of suicide among TBI survivors compared to those with no history of TBI. Evidence pertaining to suicidal thoughts and attempts was less clear, mainly due to heterogeneity of methodological quality across studies. One small randomised controlled trial was identified that targeted suicide prevention in TBI survivors. Further research is needed to identify the prevalence of post-TBI ideation and attempts, and to establish evidence-based suicide prevention practices among TBI survivors.

The purpose of the current paper was to conduct a systematic review of the literature on predictors of emotional distress in caregivers of persons with traumatic brain injury (TBI), and to provide evidence-based classification for prognostic variables to guide future research and clinical practice. A search was conducted using PubMed, CINAHL and PsycINFO databases. The citations of resulting articles were also reviewed. Twenty-eight articles met inclusion criteria and were retained for review. Reviews were conducted in accordance with the 2011 edition of the American Academy of Neurology (AAN) Guidelines for classifying evidence for prognostic studies. Data abstraction revealed one Class I study, four Class II studies, eight Class III studies, and 15 Class IV studies. Results of the review indicated that caregivers’ report of neurobehavioural problems in the person with injury is a probable predictor of emotional distress for caregivers of persons with complicated mild, moderate or severe TBI (Class B evidence). The level of participation in the person with injury, level of support needed by the person with injury, and family systems functioning are probably predictors of emotional distress for caregivers of persons with severe TBI (Class B evidence). Executive functioning impairment in the person with injury, pre-injury emotional distress in caregivers, caregiver age, caregivers’ use of emotion-focused coping, and social support may possibly be risk factors for caregivers’ emotional distress (Class C evidence). Recommendations for future research and implications for assessment and treatment of family caregivers are discussed.

This paper describes the value of collaboration from two perspectives. The first perspective highlights the benefit of teaching communication partners collaborative communication strategies to facilitate the interactions of people with traumatic brain injury (TBI). Collaborative strategies encompass the provision of collaborative intent, emotional and cognitive support, positive questioning styles and collaborative turn taking. Translating research outcomes into accessible resources is described with reference to the TBI Express website which has video demonstrations of conversation strategies for communication partners of people with TBI. The broader meaning of collaboration is also discussed, with particular focus on the advantages collaboration can provide in advancing rehabilitation outcomes for people with acquired brain injury, their families and social networks. Collaboration is described in terms of encompassing all relevant contributors to the development of research advances, including people with acquired brain injury, their families and social networks, stakeholders, clinicians, peak bodies, students and researchers. Two examples of large-scale research collaborations occurring within Australia are described, including the NHMRC Clinical Centre of Research Excellence in Aphasia Rehabilitation and the NHMRC Moving Ahead Centre for Research Excellence in Brain Recovery, also known as Moving Ahead.