3 Optimizing Cognitive Rehabilitation of the Injured Warfighter
Authors: Bailie Jason M , Babakhanyan Ida , Sargent Paul , Lopez Juan J , Caswell Melissa , Basham Angela , Barnard Lori , Siblesz Ana , Venza Erin , Zientz Jennifer , Chapman Sandi 
Published: December 2023

Objective:

Many individuals who experienced a mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) have persistent cognitive complaints. Traditional cognitive rehabilitation (TCR) interventions were primarily developed for severe neurological injury which has limited effectiveness in rehabilitation of active duty military personnel who have the goal of returning to full military operational status. To remain on active duty, warfighters must have sufficient mental competency to safely and effectively function in complex environments such as combat. There is need for a cognitive rehabilitation approach that addresses demands of military personnel to expedite return to duty. The Strategic Memory Advanced Reasoning Training (SMART) program is novel alternative to TCR. SMART is an evidence-based advanced reasoning protocol that enhances cognitive domains essential to military readiness (e.g., mental agility, strategic learning, problem solving, and focus) and requires less than half of the treatment time. The objective of this study was to assess the efficacy of SMART compared to TCR in terms of overall recovery as well as change in specific cognitive domains.

Participants and Methods:

Participants were recruited from a military treatment facility. All patients had at least one diagnosed mTBI as well as persistent cognitive complaints. Participants completed the Rey-15 to ensure performance validity. Final sample was SMART n = 28 and SCORE n = 19. Primary dependent measure was the Global Deficit Scale (GDS). GDS was calculated from: Hopkins Verbal Learning Test-Revised (HVLT-R); Delis Kaplan Executive Functioning System Color Word (CW) and Trail Making (TM), Paced Auditory Serial Addition Test (PASAT), and the Symbol Digit Modality Test (SDMT). Demographically corrected t-scores were converted to deficit scores as follows: >40 = 0, 35-39 = 1, 30-34 = 2, 25-29 = 3, 20-24 = 4, <20 = 5. Deficit scores were averaged to calculate GDS. For each measure, Hohen’s g was analyzed for effect size comparisons pre-post treatment.

Results:

Average number of treatment hours was significantly lower in the SMART condition (SMART: M = 18.47 hours, SD = 2.17; TCR: M = 42.42 hours, SD = 3.79, p <.001). A repeated measures ANOVA showed a significant change on GDS post-treatment (F = 30.25, p < .001) with a large effect size (n2 = .402); however, the interventions did not differ on GDS change. Impact on cognitive domains was relatively equivalent for processing speed (SMART h = 0.67 vs TCR h = -.54) and executive function (SMART h = -0.92 vs TCR h = -.85); however, SMART had a larger impact on memory (SMART h = -0.81 vs TCR h = -.39). SMART resulted in large improvements in retention and recognition memory which were minimally impacted by TCR.

Conclusions:

Both TCR and SMART had comparable effectiveness in improving cognitive impairment, though SMART was completed in less than half of the treatment time. Both interventions had large effect sizes on processing speed and executive functioning; however, SMART was more effective in improving long-term memory. Memory is an integral part of military readiness. Further investigation is required to determine the relative effectiveness of these two approaches to improving cognitive readiness of the warfighter.