Cited by 102Traumatic Brain Injury ResearchAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychological Treatments and Assessments

Motivational interviewing and cognitive behaviour therapy for anxiety following traumatic brain injury: A pilot randomised controlled trial

Hsieh, Ming-Yun, Ponsford, Jennie, Wong, Dana, Schönberger, Michael, Taffe, John, Mckay, Adam·2012·Neuropsychological Rehabilitation

Abstract

Although cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) is the treatment of choice for anxiety, its delivery needs to be adapted for individuals with traumatic brain injury (TBI). It also requires clients' active engagement for maximum benefit. This study was a pilot randomised controlled trial involving an anxiety treatment programme adapted for people with TBI, based on CBT and motivational interviewing (MI). Twenty-seven participants with moderate/severe TBI (aged 21-73 years, 78% males) recruited from a brain injury rehabilitation hospital were randomly allocated to receive MI + CBT (n = 9), non-directive counselling (NDC) + CBT (n = 10) and treatment-as-usual (TAU) (n = 8). CBT and MI were manualised and delivered in 12 weekly individual sessions. Primary outcome was self-reported anxiety symptoms assessed at baseline, at the end of NDC/MI and immediately following CBT. Assessment was conducted by assessors blinded to group assignment. Intention-to-treat analyses showed that the two active treatment groups demonstrated significantly greater anxiety reduction than TAU. Participants receiving MI showed greater response to CBT, in terms of reduction in anxiety, stress and non-productive coping, compared to participants who received NDC. The results provided preliminary support for the adapted CBT programme, and the potential utility of MI as treatment prelude. Longer follow-up data are required to evaluate the maintenance of treatment effects.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/09602011.2012.678860

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 62 · Cited by 102

Authors
Hsieh, M.-Y., Ponsford, J., Wong, D., Schönberger, M., Taffe, J., & Mckay, A.
Affiliations
  • Monash University (AU)
  • National Trauma Research Institute (AU)
  • University of Freiburg (DE)
  • Epworth Hospital (AU)
Corresponding author
Ponsford, Jennie
Venue
Neuropsychological Rehabilitation
Published
2012-08
Volume
22
Issue
4
Pages
585-608
ISSN
  • 0960-2011 (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-0694
OpenAlex
W2030836867
Cited by
102
References
62
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 3
FWCI
5.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Neuropsychological Rehabilitation (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Traumatic Brain Injury Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychological Treatments and Assessments
Keywords
traumatic brain injury, anxiety, motivational interviewing, cognitive behavioral therapy, non-directive counseling, stress, non-productive coping, brain injury rehabilitation
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Anxiety, Brain Injuries, Counseling, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Neuropsychological Tests, Patient Compliance, Pilot Projects, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Self Report, Motivational Interviewing

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review