Background: Following traumatic brain injury (TBI), the clinical focus is often on disability. However, patients' perceptions of well-being can be discordant with their disability level, referred... Show moreBackground: Following traumatic brain injury (TBI), the clinical focus is often on disability. However, patients' perceptions of well-being can be discordant with their disability level, referred to as the 'disability paradox'. We aimed to examine the relationship between disability and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) following TBI, while taking variation in personal, injury-related and environment factors into account. Methods: We used data from the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury study. Disability was assessed 6 months post-injury by the Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended (GOSE). HRQoL was assessed by the SF-12v2 physical and mental component summary scores and the Quality of Life after Traumatic Brain Injury overall scale. We examined mean total and domain HRQoL scores by GOSE. We quantified variance in HRQoL explained by GOSE, personal, injury-related and environment factors with multivariable regression. Results: Six-month outcome assessments were completed in 2075 patients, of whom 78% had mild TBI (Glasgow Coma Scale 13-15). Patients with severe disability had higher HRQoL than expected on the basis of GOSE alone, particularly after mild TBI. Up to 50% of patients with severe disability reported HRQoL scores within the normative range. GOSE, personal, injury-related and environment factors explained a limited amount of variance in HRQoL (up to 29%). Conclusion: Contrary to the idea that discrepancies are unusual, many patients with poor functional outcomes reported well-being that was at or above the boundary considered satisfactory for the normative sample. These findings challenge the idea that satisfactory HRQoL in patients with disability should be described as 'paradoxical' and question common views of what constitutes 'unfavourable' outcome. Show less
Gravesteijn, B.; Krijkamp, E.; Alphen, A. van; Busschbach, J.; Geleijnse, G.; Helmrich, I.R.; ... ; Jong, R.B. de 2022
Objectives: Coronavirus disease 2019 has put unprecedented pressure on healthcare systems worldwide, leading to a reduction of the available healthcare capacity. Our objective was to develop a... Show moreObjectives: Coronavirus disease 2019 has put unprecedented pressure on healthcare systems worldwide, leading to a reduction of the available healthcare capacity. Our objective was to develop a decision model to estimate the impact of postponing semielective surgical procedures on health, to support prioritization of care from a utilitarian perspective. Methods: A cohort state-transition model was developed and applied to 43 semielective nonpediatric surgical procedures commonly performed in academic hospitals. Scenarios of delaying surgery from 2 weeks were compared with delaying up to 1 year and no surgery at all. Model parameters were based on registries, scientific literature, and the World Health Organization Global Burden of Disease study. For each surgical procedure, the model estimated the average expected disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) per month of delay. Results: Given the best available evidence, the 2 surgical procedures associated with most DALYs owing to delay were bypass surgery for Fontaine III/IV peripheral arterial disease (0.23 DALY/month, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.13-0.36) and trans aortic valve implantation (0.15 DALY/month, 95% CI: 0.09-0.24). The 2 surgical procedures with the least DALYs were placing a shunt for dialysis (0.01, 95% CI: 0.005-0.01) and thyroid carcinoma resection (0.01, 95% CI: 0.01-0.02). Conclusion: Expected health loss owing to surgical delay can be objectively calculated with our decision model based on best available evidence, which can guide prioritization of surgical procedures to minimize population health loss in times of scarcity. The model results should be placed in the context of different ethical perspectives and combined with capacity management tools to facilitate large-scale implementation. Show less
Wijk, R.P.J. van; Dijck, J.T.J.M. van; Timmers, M.; Veen, E. van; Citerio, G.; Lingsma, H.F.; ... ; CENTER-TB1 Investigators 2020
Purpose: Enrolling traumatic brain injury (731) patients with an inability to provide informed consent in research is challenging. Alternatives to patient consent are not sufficiently embedded in... Show morePurpose: Enrolling traumatic brain injury (731) patients with an inability to provide informed consent in research is challenging. Alternatives to patient consent are not sufficiently embedded in European and national legislation, which allows procedural variation and bias. We aimed to quantify variations in informed consent policy and practice.Methods: Variation was explored in the CENTER-TBI study. Policies were reported by using a questionnaire and national legislation. Data on used informed consent procedures were available for 4498 patients from 57 centres across 17 European countries.Results: Variation in the use of informed consent procedures was found between and within EU member states. Proxy informed consent (N = 1377;64%) was the most frequently used type of consent in the ICU, followed by patient informed consent (N 426;20%) and deferred consent (N 334;16%). Deferred consent was only actively used in 15 centres (26%), although it was considered valid in 47 centres (82%).Conclusions: Alternatives to patient consent are essential for TBI research. While there seems to be concordance amongst national legislations, there is regional variability in institutional practices with respect to the use of different informed consent procedures. Variation could be caused by several reasons, including inconsistencies in clear legislation or knowledge of such legislation amongst researchers. (C) 2020 Published by Elsevier Inc. Show less
AbstractBackground: The European Union (EU) aims to optimize patient protection and efficiency of health-care research by harmonizing procedures across Member States. Nonetheless, further... Show moreAbstractBackground: The European Union (EU) aims to optimize patient protection and efficiency of health-care research by harmonizing procedures across Member States. Nonetheless, further improvements are required to increase multicenter research efficiency. We investigated IRB procedures in a large prospective European multicenter study on traumatic brain injury (TBI), aiming to inform and stimulate initiatives to improve efficiency.Methods: We reviewed relevant documents regarding IRB submission and IRB approval from European neurotrauma centers participating in the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI). Documents included detailed information on IRB procedures and the duration from IRB submission until approval(s). They were translated and analyzed to determine the level of harmonization of IRB procedures within Europe.Results: From 18 countries, 66 centers provided the requested documents. The primary IRB review was conducted centrally (N = 11, 61%) or locally (N = 7, 39%) and primary IRB approval was obtained after one (N = 8, 44%), two (N = 6, 33%) or three (N = 4, 23%) review rounds with a median duration of respectively 50 and 98 days until primary IRB approval. Additional IRB approval was required in 55% of countries and could increase duration to 535 days. Total duration from submission until required IRB approval was obtained was 114 days (IQR 75-224) and appeared to be shorter after submission to local IRBs compared to central IRBs (50 vs. 138 days, p = 0.0074).Conclusion: We found variation in IRB procedures between and within European countries. There were differences in submission and approval requirements, number of review rounds and total duration. Research collaborations could benefit from the implementation of more uniform legislation and regulation while acknowledging local cultural habits and moral values between countries.Keywords: CENTER-TBI; European Union; Harmonization; Health-care research; Research ethic committees. Show less
Veen, E. van; Jagt, M. van der; Cnossen, M.C.; Maas, A.I.R.; Beaufort, I.D. de; Menon, D.K.; ... ; CENTER-TBI Investigators 2018
