BACKGROUND: Training for communication partners of people with traumatic brain injury (TBI) is efficacious when using blinded independent ratings of casual conversations measured in the clinic. However, the question remains as to whether participants

Primary objective: The aim of this pilot study was to explore possible correlations between measures of functional communication skills in the first year post-injury and later employment outcome. Design: A preliminary observational study employing a prospective longitudinal design. Methods: Fourteen adults with traumatic brain injury completed an assessment involving two functional communication measures: an objective test of cognitive communication skills (Functional Assessment of Verbal Reasoning and Executive Strategies, FAVRES) and self-ratings of communication impairment (LaTrobe Communication Questionnaire, LCQ). Follow-up of participants’ employment outcome was conducted 9–18 months after the initial assessment. Results: At follow-up, eight participants had returned to employment (working a similar number of hours to their pre-injury status), five were unemployed and one was lost to follow-up. Employment status at follow-up was strongly correlated with both FAVRES Total Accuracy scores (r = 0.833) and Total Rationale scores (r = 0.837), but there were no correlations with FAVRES Time and Reasoning scores or with the LCQ. Conclusions: The FAVRES shows initial promise as an assessment that may be associated with successful employment outcome following traumatic brain injury. Further research with larger samples is required to provide further information on the prognostic utility of measures such as the FAVRES and the LCQ.

Purpose: To investigate the experiences of participants who attended communication training programs for people with traumatic brain injury (TBI) and their everyday communication partners (CP) as part of a non-randomised controlled trial. Method: The participants were people with TBI and their CP, who were family members or carers of the people with TBI. Twenty-six participants (13 participants with TBI and 13 CP) completed the JOINT program, which involved participants with TBI and CP attending the program together. Fourteen participants with TBI completed the TBI SOLO training program, which did not involve the participation of a CP. Semi-structured videotaped interviews were completed by all participants at the end of the training. Using a six-step generic analysis procedure, data were categorised into topics and then subtopics to identify conceptually discrete units. Results: Participants described improvements in communication skills, the impact of improved communication skills, valuable components of the programs and components that needed changes. Conclusion: The accounts of participants provided additional evidence for the effectiveness of the training programs, assisted with identifying helpful components of the training and demonstrated the usefulness of a qualitative research methodology as part of evaluating the outcomes of the clinical trial.

Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine is an international peer-review journal published in English, with at least 10 issues published per year.

Introduction: Communication skills training for people with traumatic brain injury (TBI) and their carers is recommended best practice. Delivery via telehealth could improve access to this training. This paper focuses on the acceptability of telehealth delivery of communication skills training. Methods: A mixed-methods investigation of acceptability of telehealth to people with TBI and their carers was incorporated into a clinical trial. Thirty-six people with TBI (23 metropolitan and 13 regional) and their carers were recruited. Metropolitan participants were randomly allocated to telehealth or in-person intervention at a 1:3 ratio. Regional participants were allocated to telehealth. Telehealth and in-person participants were compared on retention, time to complete the programme, home practice completion and therapeutic alliance ratings. Participants completed semi-structured interviews regarding their views on telehealth, which were analysed using thematic analysis. Results: There were no significant differences between telehealth and in-person participants in retention rate, time to complete the programme, degree of home practice completion or therapeutic alliance ratings. Three themes were identified: ‘telehealth delivery opens a window for access to rehabilitation in the context of my daily life’, ‘in-person delivery offers rehabilitation based on natural human interaction’ and ‘weighing telehealth against in-person delivery’. Discussion: Participants found telehealth delivery acceptable, as indicated by the similarity between groups in the quantitative process measures, and as reported in interviews. Some reported a preference for in-person delivery if there had been a choice of delivery mode. Participants described characteristics of the two delivery modes which were relevant to their attitudes towards telehealth.