A literature review of outcome and treatment options after acquired brain injury: Suggestions for adult offenders using knowledge from the general population
Esther Q. J. de Geus,Maarten V. Milders,Joan E. van Horn,Frank A. Jonker,Thijs Fassaert,Juliette C. Hutten,Femke Kuipers,Christel Grimbergen,Siri D. S. Noordermeer
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/cbm.2334
2024-03-27
Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health
Abstract:Background Acquired brain injury (ABI) is a major health problem, often with negative effects on behaviour and mental health as well as cognition. Prevalence of ABI is exceptionally high among offenders and increases their re‐offending risk. Information on risk factors for ABI and its outcomes among offenders that could guide effective treatment for them is, nevertheless, scarce and dispersed. However, there is a more substantial literature about the general population that could inform work with brain‐injured offenders, especially when selecting for samples or subgroups with similar relevant characteristics, such as lower socio‐economic status (SES), pre‐injury lower tested intelligence score (<85) and pre‐injury mental health problems. Aims To explore brain injury data from non‐offender samples of otherwise similar socio‐economic and mental health and ability characteristics to offenders then, first, to describe their untreated outcomes and, secondly, outcomes after frequently used interventions in these circumstances, noting factors associated with their effectiveness. Method Three databases were systematically searched for the years 2010–2022; first, using terms for brain injury or damage and cognitive (dys)function, mental health or quality of life. Second, in a separate search, we used these terms and terms for interventions and rehabilitation. In the second review, studies were selected for clear, distinguishable data on age, sex, SES and lifestyle factors to facilitate inferences for offenders. A narrative analytical approach was adopted for both reviews. Results Samples with characteristics that are typical in offender groups, including lower SES, lower pre‐injury intelligence quotient (<85), prior cognitive impairments and prior mental health problems, had poorer cognitive and behavioural outcomes following ABI than those without such additional problems, together with lower treatment adherence. With respect to treatment, adequate motivation and self‐awareness were associated with better cognitive and behavioural outcomes than when these were low or absent, regardless of the outcome measured. Conclusions More complex pre‐injury mental health problems and social disadvantages typical of offenders are associated with poorer post‐brain injury recovery. This paper adds to practical knowledge by bringing together work that follows specific outcome trajectories. Overall, succesful ABI‐interventions in the general population that aim at pre‐injury difficulties comparable to those seen among offenders, show that personalising injury‐specific treatments and taking account of these difficulties, maximised positive outcomes.
psychiatry,criminology & penology