Abstract
A traumatic brain injury (TBI) results from a head trauma, such as from an accident or fall. TBIs can cause neuropsychological difficulties, which can be hidden or misdiagnosed. This can cause professional misunderstandings and misattributions, which can lead to inappropriate strategies being adopted. As a result, research into how professionals can best support brain-injured children is vital.
A systematic literature review investigated the effectiveness of brain injury training on improving knowledge of parents and children impacted by brain injury, and professionals working with brain-injured children. Sixteen studies met the review criteria and were critically appraised using Gough’s ‘Weight of Evidence’ framework. Findings demonstrated emerging evidence for the effectiveness of brain injury training immediately post-training, but was inconclusive longer-term. The empirical paper used a fully mixed sequential equal status design to explore professionals’ TBI knowledge and attributions towards brain-injured children. The quantitative aspect utilised a survey to assess professionals’ TBI knowledge. A between-subjects ANOVA demonstrated inter-professional differences, with health professionals having the greatest TBI knowledge, and education professionals having the least. In addition, the mean knowledge score of all professionals was less than 55%, indicating a lack of TBI knowledge across all professions. The qualitative aspect involved semi-structured interviews, which assessed professionals’ attributions towards brain-injured children at three time points: pre-TBI, post-presentation change, and post-TBI diagnosis. Data was analysed using an exploratory multiple case study design.
Attributions changed according to behavioural presentation, which was consistent with Attribution Theory. Professionals also attributed each child’s presentation change to the TBI, once this had been revealed, providing support for Labelling Theory. Data gathered also demonstrated that, when working with brain-injured children, professionals valued multi-disciplinary working and believed their roles could be both distinct and overlapping. Strengths, limitations and implications for practice, as well as future research, are discussed.