Computerized Cognitive Rehabilitation verses Clinician Directed Therapy in mTBI

Abstract

Abstract Background Cognitive problems following mTBI are common and typically managed with one-on-one clinician directed treatment (CDT); however, this is time and labor intensive. Computerized cognitive rehabilitation (CCR) programs overcome these limitation but the comparable efficacy is not well understood in mTBI. Method A randomized controlled trial included 13 active duty service members with a history of mTBI and persistent cognitive complaints. Participants received either CCR (N = 6) or CDT (N = 7) during the initial phase of this study. Treatments were one hour, 3 times a week for 4 weeks. Average age was 32.77 (SD = 7.96). Average intelligence estimated by word reading was average (WTAR M = 107.46, SD = 9.32). Specific measures for attention included Symbol Digit Modality Test (SDMT), Paced Auditory Serial Addition Test (PASAT), Conners Continuous Performance Test (CPT-3), as well as Digit Forward (DF), Digit Backward, and Driving from the Neuropsychological Assessment Battery (NAB). Standard scores corrected for age were analyzed. Change scores were computed between pre and post intervention. Results There was a significant difference for SDMT (p = 0.034, d = 1.342) and DF (p = 0.0015, d = 2.33), where those who received CDT showed greater improvement. The groups did not differ on Driving, PASAT, CPT-3, and DB (p’s > 0.62). Conclusions Preliminary analysis of data suggests that clinician directed treatment was superior to a computerized intervention matched for time and intensity in treating patients with persistent cognitive complaints following mTBI. Large effects were observed on measures of processing speed and focused attention. This may suggest computerized treatment alone is less effective though further data is needed.