vix.ing · top · new · best · stats

Group Psychosocial Interventions Following Acquired Brain Injury: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Group Process and Outcomes

2025/08/21 by Hannah L. McGlashan, Kate Thompson, Michael Lam +4 · 5 citations

paper · doi:10.1007/s11065-025-09670-w

published in Neuropsychology Review (Springer Science and Business Media LLC)

crossref issued 2025/08/21 · crossref published 2025/08/21 · crossref published-online 2025/08/21 · crossref created 2025/08/21 · crossref deposited 2025/09/09 · crossref indexed 2026/08/07

Abstract

Abstract Acquired brain injury can result in disability with direct and indirect consequences for psychosocial functioning. Psychosocial interventions embedded within traditional neurorehabilitation may provide a valuable buffer. While there is evidence of benefits associated with group-based psychosocial interventions, there is no single recommended intervention, despite several different approaches having been trialled. This systematic review aimed to provide a critical appraisal of existing group psychosocial interventions in neurorehabilitation, meta-analyse their efficacy, and explore the contribution of group process to outcomes. Eligible studies were published in English-language peer-reviewed journals and recruited adults with acquired brain injury in receipt of group psychosocial interventions. Outcomes of interest were depression, anxiety, quality of life, emotional distress, community integration, and social support. A systematic search of CINAHL, PsycINFO, Medline, Web of Science and Embase from database inception until 08.07.2024 was conducted. Risk of bias was assessed using the Effective Public Health Practice Project Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies. Effect sizes were calculated using Hedges’ g and estimated using a three-level random effects model. Sixty-five studies were included in the systematic review, and 48 were included in the meta-analysis ( n = 2653). There was an overall small effect on psychosocial outcomes (Hedges’ g = 0.24, 95% CIs [0.16, 0.33]), though none of the included studies satisfactorily analysed group process despite 70% of these studies proclaiming their importance. Overall, there were mixed findings across intervention type and significant heterogeneity. Recommendations for future psychosocial group interventions in neurorehabilitation are provided.

Citations