INTRODUCTION: Several factors influence the return to work (RTW) after brain injury (BI). The aims of the study were to follow-up the RTW after a vocational neuropsychological programme for individuals with a brain injury and to explore factors predicting RTW. The hypothesis was that as self-awareness was already addressed in the programme, severity of injury would have a greater impact on RTW.

METHOD: Sixty-five of 72 persons (median age 27) who had attended the programme 1998-2003 were interviewed about their occupation at 1, 2, 3 and 5 years after the programme. A logistic regression was made with the variables concerning process skill, somatic problems and irritability, the digit symbol coding and pre-morbid occupation to explore predictors of RTW.

RESULTS: The main cause was TBI (44.6%). Before injury 77% were employed or studied and after the injury 80% did not have any occupation. After 5 years 40% had returned to work. The only significant variable in the regression was the pre-morbid occupation.

DISCUSSION: The study stresses the difficulty to know the key elements involved in RTW which confirms the need for rehabilitation to focus on several factors in different contexts in order to affect the outcome.

Background: Working memory (WM) problems influence most activities of daily living. The aim was to evaluate if computerized working memory training after brain injury has a significant effect on functioning in daily life. Method: Outpatients with WM deficits, aged 22-63 years, were randomized to either intervention group (IG, n = 20) or control group (CG, n = 18) and received 5 weeks standard rehabilitation. The IG also received WM training with the Cogmed QM training program. Assessments were made before (A1), immediately (A2) and 3 months (A3) after intervention. After follow-up, the CG was offered the computerized training and assessed after this (A4; n = 8). Assessments included the WAIS-III Digit span reversed, Fatigue Impact Scale (FIS), Assessment of Motor and Process Skills (AMPS), Rivermead Behavioural Memory Test-II (RBMT-II) and a WM questionnaire. Results: The IG improved on digit span and FIS, A1-A2, and significantly more than the CG on the WM questionnaire, A1-A3. Both groups improved in AMPS motor skill and the AMPS process skill score tended towards significant improvement in the IG, from A1-A3. After training (A3-A4), the CG improved in digit span and RBMT-II. Conclusion: The WM training seems to have a generalized effect on functional activity and lessens fatigue.

Objective: To study if computerized working memory (WM) training, in the sub-acute phase after acquired brain injury, in patients with impaired WM, improves WM, cognition and psychological health. Research design: A randomized study (n = 47) with an intervention group (IG) and a control group (CG), mean age 47.7 years. The WAIS-III NI, Digit span, Arithmetic, Letter-Number Sequences (Working Memory sub-scale), Spatial span, the Barrow Neurological Institute Screen for Higher Cerebral Functions (BNIS) and the self-rating scales DEX and HADS were administered at baseline and at follow-ups at 6 and 18 weeks. Both groups underwent integrated rehabilitation. The IG also trained with the computerized WM training program, Cogmed QM, which was offered to the CG and followed up after the study completion. Results: Both groups improved after their WM training in Working Memory, BNIS and in Digit span, particularly the reversed section. Both the BNIS and the Digit span differed significantly between the IG and CG due to the greater improvement in the IG after their WM training. Psychological health improved as both groups reported less depressive symptoms and the CG also less anxiety, after the training. Conclusion: Results indicated that computerized WM training can improve working memory, cognition and psychological health.