Linked Life Data

9044695

Source:http://linkedlifedata.com/resource/pubmed/id/9044695

Statements in which the resource exists as a subject.
PredicateObject
rdf:type
lifeskim:mentions
pubmed:issue
4
pubmed:dateCreated
1997-2-28
pubmed:abstractText
For many years the notion that brain damage causes less impairment in children than in adults (sometimes known as the 'Kennard Principle') has enjoyed widespread support among scientists and clinicians. More recently neuroscientists have questioned the Principle, most now taking an opposing view that damage to the rapidly developing brain can be more harmful than equivalent damage in adulthood. Many clinicians, however, appear reluctant to reject the Kennard Principle. This study investigates the extent to which the Kennard Principle still guides the judgement of different groups of health-care professionals (neurosurgeons, neurologists, neuropsychologists, general practitioners, nurses, physiotherapists, occupational therapists, and speech therapists). Subjects were asked to estimate the extent of recovery in clinically based but fictitious case studies which differed only in the reported age of the patient. The professions differed in their levels of optimism regarding the extent of recovery to be expected, but all predicted better recovery in younger patients (under 10) than in adults with otherwise similar brain injuries. The results are discussed in terms of their implications for the treatment of brain injuries in the young.
pubmed:language
eng
pubmed:journal
pubmed:citationSubset
IM
pubmed:status
MEDLINE
pubmed:month
Apr
pubmed:issn
0269-9052
pubmed:author
pubmed:issnType
Print
pubmed:volume
10
pubmed:owner
NLM
pubmed:authorsComplete
Y
pubmed:pagination
303-10
pubmed:dateRevised
2004-11-17
pubmed:meshHeading
pubmed:year
1996
pubmed:articleTitle
Age and recovery from brain injury: clinical opinions and experimental evidence.
pubmed:affiliation
Department of Psychology, University of East London, London, UK.
pubmed:publicationType
Journal Article, Case Reports