290 likes | 467 Views
Directions in Collaborative Brain Injury Rehabilitation Research. John Whyte, MD, PhD Moss Rehabilitation Research Institute. Presentation Goals. Discuss the types of research that are relevant to brain injury rehabilitation
E N D
Directions in Collaborative Brain Injury Rehabilitation Research John Whyte, MD, PhD Moss Rehabilitation Research Institute
Presentation Goals • Discuss the types of research that are relevant to brain injury rehabilitation • Examine what is required to successfully conduct those forms of research • Examine the types of research that can be conducted at a single institution, those that must be conducted collaboratively, and what is required for successful collaborations
Types of Research • Population-based epidemiology • Longitudinal natural history* • Prediction* • Descriptive clinical* • Development of measurement tools* • Treatment efficacy* • Enablement models • Health services • * = productivity for an individual clinical institution in at least some phases of the research
Population-based epidemiology • Aims to define the incidence or prevalence of a clinical problem in a representative population • Hospitals generally poorly suited to this kind of research because of referral/selection biases • Exceptions if there is a clear and operationalized referral policy (e.g., “all patients with X are referred to institution Y”) • Benefit: policy relevant information about the quantity and severity and regional variation of a problem • Role for an individual institution: limited because of “population based” issue
Longitudinal natural history • Aims to characterize the clinical course of a disease or problem as it currently exists; need not be population based if the starting cohort can be clearly defined • Example: pace and variation in recovery of consciousness among TBI patients with 30 days of coma or more • Benefit: what problems persist and what problems resolve over time? How variable is recovery? What factors contribute to that variability? Policy relevance and basis for planning treatment trials. • Role for an individual institution: exploratory research on a common problem
Prediction • Aims to identify early variables that predict later outcomes • Example: premorbid and injury variables that predict successful return to work after TBI • Benefit: • Practical prediction in a group for service utilization • Practical prediction in the individual for treatment decisions (uncommon) • Clues of mechanistically relevant variables (empirical prediction vs. causal attribution) • Role for an individual institution: exploratory prediction of a common outcome
Descriptive clinical • Aims to describe a particular clinical syndrome or problem in a defined population • Similar to longitudinal, but may be cross-sectional • Example: prevalence of “ICU neuropathy” among TBI patients with ICU stays > 2 weeks • Benefit: highlight the magnitude of a clinical problem, identify “risk factors” for that problem, basis for treatment studies • Role for an individual institution: exploratory assessment of a common problem
Development of measurement tools • Aims to design reliable, valid, and sensitive tools for measuring clinical phenomena of interest • Example: inter-rater reliability studies of the Moss Attention Rating Scale • Benefit: supports clinical descriptive, longitudinal, and treatment research by providing quantitative measures • Role for an individual institution: initial instrument development, exploratory psychometric research on measuring a common problem
Treatment efficacy • Aims to determine the clinical benefit of a particular treatment in a defined population • Example: a comparative study of a hand-held reminding computer vs. a “memory notebook” in supporting functional activities in TBI patients with memory deficits • Benefit: ultimate source of evidence to guide treatment selection • Role for an individual institution: proof of concept treatment development, initial feasibility and efficacy in a common problem
Enablement Models • Aims to quantitatively model the interrelationships among variables in the ICF • Example: What are the relevant contributions of lower extremity strength, balance, proprioception, and vision, in determining a patient’s ambulation ability? • Benefit: treatment efficacy research can identify tools to change specific clinical variables (e.g., strength), but cannot tell us in which patients improving strength will enhance ambulation. • Role for an individual institution: limited – generally requires a large sample with variation in the relevant impairments and functional activities of interest
Health services • Aims to understand how differences in healthcare delivery system organization, staffing, and financing are associated with differences in outcomes • Example: How are regional variations in rehabilitation length of stay and treatment intensity associated with functional outcomes? • Benefit: Addresses policy relevant issue in healthcare organization • Role for an individual institution: limited – it is the variation among providers that is useful; large samples required to control for “case mix”, etc.
Some Caveats • All research is developmental, meaning that a sequence of studies, rather than an individual study, ultimately answers the question(s) of interest. • A given institution may be very productive in participating in one developmental stage, and far less productive in another
Caveats (cont.) • “Studies that can be done at Hospital X” is not a domain of science! • Will hospital-trained researchers stay hospital-based? • Can a given hospital retain all the forms of expertise necessary to study all the topics of potential clinical interest? • Risks and benefits of un-linking the researcher from the research site • Benefit: allows a researhcer to “go where the science leads them” • Risk: it may lead them out of the institution
Assessment & treatment of TBI-related attention deficits • Review of existing research suggested the need for validated measures of the deficit • Development and testing of new measures (MRRI) • Computerized information processing tasks • Videotaped records of behavior in structured work settings • Determined that measures of processing speed, divided attention, and off-task behavior could be used • Pilot study of methyphenidate treatment, using those measures (MRRI)
Computer Testing Apparatus • Individualized durations • Pattern mask • Simple midline targets/foils • Most tasks similar with minor variations
Coding of Naturalistic Behavior • 3 independent visuo-motor tasks • Suitable for varied ability levels • Controlled distractions • Videotaping
Classroom Observation • Structured tasks • Group & individual work time • Free time • Time sampling w/ vibrating watches • Eye gaze, talking, location
Attention treatment (cont.) • Larger (34!!) methylphenidate crossover study (MRRI) • Next step: parallel group study – will require a multicenter system; that will require a new round of pilot work and problem solving • Problem: measures don’t address low level patients – develop a new observational measure
Attention treatment (cont.) • Develop observational rating scheme and items (MRRI) • Small inter-rater reliability study (MRRI) • Large inter-rater reliability study (multicenter) • Inter-rater reliability study on more disciplines (MRRI) • Validation against neuropsychological measures, etc. (MRRI) • Validation by treatment with methylphenidate (MRRI but should have been multicenter)
Treatment of disorders of consciousness • Preliminary feasibility exploration (MRRI assessing other sites) • All sites had low N, so strategy from the outset was multicenter • Longitudinal natural history and prediction study: what is the pattern of recovery and what factors account for variation? (multicenter) • RCT of amantadine vs. placebo: multicenter (N = 184)
Requirements for research productivity • Investigators with relevant expertise and a sustained interest • Adequate patient samples • Resources for data collection and, in particular, for follow up beyond clinical setting
Role of an individual institution • Provide patients: value is dependent on the size of the sample, and the “value” of the sample • Similar samples hard to find elsewhere • Samples elsewhere are not as well characterized • Value of a database or registry • A patient sample, alone, is rarely enough for a leadership role
Role (cont.) • Scientific leadership • What kind of scientific domain(s) are relevant? • Lead with “basic” science, or lead with “translational” science, e.g. – • The physiology and biological mechanisms of transcranial direct current brain stimulation on attention networks; vs. • The relationship between neglect and functional behavior
Questions to consider • What kinds of research (topic, phase) are feasible to conduct right now at this institution? • Patient sample • Scientific expertise & technical abilities • Clinical/translational knowledge • What kinds of research (topic, phase) would be feasible to conduct at this institution with “minor investments”?
Questions (cont.) • What kinds of research (topic, phase) that are being conducted by larger networks might have a role for this institution? • What kinds of research (topic, phase) could this institution lead by strategically developing collaborations with: • University scientists • Other clinical institutions • Government policy entities?
Summary • Almost all forms of rehabilitation research progress require a developmental sequence • Scientific needs vary over phases • Sample needs vary over phases • Difficult to identify a “scientific domain” that is well suited to a specific clinical institution across all developmental phases
Summary (cont.) • Take steps to enhance the “value” of the patient population(s) • Take steps to consolidate a team of internal investigators that are productive and valuable as collaborators • Enlarge the team with external investigators and collaborating clinical sites with similar interests • Accept that internal investigators will need to “go external” to follow scientific leads