Title |
The role of the SMART and WHIM in behavioural assessment of disorders of consciousness: clinical utility and scope for a symbiotic relationship
|
---|---|
Published in |
Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, August 2017
|
DOI | 10.1080/09602011.2017.1354769 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Ann-Marie Morrissey, Helen Gill-Thwaites, Barbara Wilson, Rachel Leonard, Lindsay McLellan, Amy Pundole, Agnes Shiel |
Abstract |
As the prevalence and incidence of disorders of consciousness (DoC) increase, researchers and clinicians are tasked with developing best practice assessment techniques. Neurobehavioural assessment remains the most clinically available method of measuring consciousness. Neuroimaging and other physiological measurements are demonstrating promise in supporting this assessment but many of these techniques require further research and are not widely available in sub-acute and long-term care settings. No study to date has explored in-depth complementary use of multiple neurobehavioural assessments in aiding beside assessment of consciousness. This paper describes and proposes complementary use of two commonly used standardised neurobehavioural assessments. The Sensory Modality Assessment and Rehabilitation Technique (SMART) and the Wessex Head Injury Matrix (WHIM) both have specific aims and play an important role in behavioural assessment across the care continuum. This paper proposes that when used together appropriately these two assessments promote best practice and strengthen behavioural assessment of consciousness by providing increased opportunities to capture awareness. Further research into use of more than one neurobehavioural tool is highlighted as an important area of inquiry for this heterogeneous population not only in clinical practice but also in research. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Ireland | 2 | 29% |
Vietnam | 1 | 14% |
Canada | 1 | 14% |
United States | 1 | 14% |
Unknown | 2 | 29% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 6 | 86% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 38 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 16% |
Student > Bachelor | 3 | 8% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 8% |
Student > Master | 3 | 8% |
Professor | 3 | 8% |
Other | 7 | 18% |
Unknown | 13 | 34% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Psychology | 9 | 24% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 11% |
Neuroscience | 4 | 11% |
Engineering | 2 | 5% |
Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 5% |
Other | 4 | 11% |
Unknown | 13 | 34% |