Conclusions

  1. There is Level 2 evidence from one study conducted by Novack et al., (1996) suggesting specific structured training programs are not effective in improving attention post ABI.
     
  2. There is conflicting evidence supporting the use of group-based interventions to treat executive dysfunction post ABI(Novakovic-Agopian et al.,2011; Parente et al., 1999; Ownsworth et al., 2008).
     
  3. Results from several studies indicate there is Level 2 evidence that dual task training has a positive effect on divided attention and is effective on speed of processing (Couillet et al., 2010; Fasotti et al., 2009).
     
  4. There is Level 1b evidence suggesting Attention Process training (APT) improves cognitive function (Sohlberg et al., 2000).
     
  5. Based on the results of an earlier study conducted by Ruff et al. (1994) there is Level 2 evidence supporting the use of computer assisted technology to enhance concentration attention post ABI.
     
  6. Although TEACHware is no longer available, based on this one RCT, there is Level 2 evidence that this computer-based program designed to remediate cognitive-communication skills, improved cognitive and communication outcomes in individuals with ABI (Thomas-Stonell et al., 1994).
     
  7. Based on the results of a study conducted by Watanabe et al., (1998), there is Level 2 evidence suggesting the presence of a calendar did not improve patients’ orientation to time and date.
     
  8. There is Level 2 evidence supporting the use of electronic calendars to assist in improving memory post ABI (McDonald et al., 2011; Bergquist et al., 2009).
     
  9. Results from a study conducted by Grealy et al. (1999) show there is Level 2 evidence suggesting virtual reality exercise programs have a positive impact on learning and working memory.
     
  10. There is Level 2 evidence suggesting memory group interventions can improve everyday memory functioning (Thickpenny-Davis and Barker-Collo, 2007).
     
  11. There is Level 1b evidence from one RCT that cranial electrotherapy stimulation did not help it improve memory and recall following brain injury (Michals et al., 1993).
     
  12. There is Level 2 evidence that internal memory strategies appear to be an effective aid in improving recall performance (Berg et al., 1991; Milders et al., 1995) .
     
  13. Potvin et al. (2011) found Level 2 evidence to support the use of visual imagery techniques to improve prospective memory.
     
  14. There is Level 1b evidence, based on a study by Zlotowitz et al. (2010), suggesting that modeling techniques (patient mirroring target) are more effective then hand-over-hand moulding techniques.
     
  15. There is Level 2 evidence from one RCT suggesting the LSVT and TRAD programs work equally well in improving the intelligibility and everyday communication of individuals with non-progressive dysarthria (Wenke et al., 2011).
     
  16. Based on a single RCT by Barreca et al. (2003) there is Level 1b evidence that some patients with head injuries may improve their ability to communicate “yes/No” responses after undergoing consistent training and environmental enrichments.
     
  17. Results of the study conducted by Radice-Neuman et al. (2009) indicate there is Level 1b evidence from one RCT to show that social communication skills training improve communication skills.
     
  18. There is Level 1b evidence from one RCT to suggest interventions designed to improve the ability to recognize emotional prosody were minimally effective (McDonald et al., 2012).
     
  19. There is Level 2 evidence from Dahlberg et al. (2007)to show that pragmatic interventions, including role-playing improve a variety of social communication skills as well as self-concept and self-confidence in social communications.
     
  20. Based on the study conducted by Braden et al (2010) there is Level 2 evidence that conversation group therapy has a beneficial effect on pragmatic and quality of life concerns in ABI patients.
     
  21. There is Level 1b evidence to suggest sort term intensive training benefits gist-reasoning and this generalizes to executive function post TBI (Vas et al., 2011).
     
  22. There is Level 2 evidence from one study to suggest group treatment of problem solving deficits is effective in improving executive function, problem solving self-appraisal and self-appraised emotional self-regulation (Rath et al., 2003).
     
  23. Based on the findings from Chen et al. (2011), there is Level 2 evidence suggesting a goals training group is effective in improving attention and executive control.
     
  24. There is Level 2 evidence suggesting computer assisted cognitive retraining is not more effective than therapist administered memory rehabilitation training in enhancing the memories of individual post brain injury (Dou et al., 2006).
     
  25. There is conflicting evidence supporting the use of group-based interventions to treat executive dysfunction post ABI (Novakovic-Agopian et al., 2011; Ownsworth et al., 2006; Amos 2002; Parente et al., 1999).
     
  26. There is Level 2 evidence based on a single RCT conducted by Levine et al. (2000) that goal management training is effective for improving paper and pencil everyday tasks and meal preparation skills for persons with an ABI.
     
  27. There is Level 2 evidence to support the effectiveness of interventions that focus on training the communication partners of individuals with severe ABI (Togher et al., 2004). 
     
  28. There is Level 2 evidence supporting the training of paid caregivers to allow them to communicate more effectively with those who sustain an ABI; thus allowing those with ABI to improve their communication skills (Behn et al., 2012).
     
  29. The findings of one RCT suggest there some evidence to support the use of methylphenidate to enhance cognitive function post ABI, although the findings were not significant (Kim et al., 2006).
     
  30. Based on a single RCT, there is Level 1b evidence that Donepezil improves attention and short-term memory post ABI (Zhang et al., 2004).
     
  31. Based on a two RCTs there is conflicting evidence supporting the use of bromocriptine to enhance cognitive functioning (Whyte et al., 2008; McDowell et al., 1998).
     
  32. There is Level 2 evidence that amantadine does not help to improve learning and memory deficits based on the conclusions of one study (Schneider et al. 1999).
     
  33. There is Level 1b evidence that citicoline does not enhance functional or cognitive functioning in individuals who have sustained a TBI (Zafonte et al., 2012).