Towards Comparative Effectiveness in Military Vestibular Rehabilitation
Towards Comparative Effectiveness in Military Vestibular Rehabilitation
To prospectively evaluate the tools, environment and resources to compare the effectiveness of two different standard of care vestibular rehabilitation approaches in a military cohort with post-concussive vestibular symptoms.
Aim 1. To prospectively evaluate the reliability of a series of diagnostic and outcome assessment tools in a military cohort with post-concussive vestibular symptoms; these to include the Dizziness Handicap Inventory (DHI), Activities-Specific Balance Confidence Scale (ABC), the Computerized Dynamic Posturography (CDP) and the Neuro-Otologic Test System (NOTC).
Hypothesis 1. Active military personnel consist of physically high functioning individuals in whom standard diagnostic and outcome assessment tools may fail to target variations in performance. The investigators believe that active military personnel score different than general populations in standard diagnostic and outcome assessment tools.
Endpoint 1. The investigators will compare the DHI, ABC, CDP and NOTC results obtained in this study with historical data from the studies supporting the validation of each of the individual assessment tools.
Aim 2. To assess the concept of 'clinically meaningful change' as it relates to dizziness specific to a military cohort with post-concussive vestibular symptoms.
Hypothesis 2. Because of the differences in physical characteristics and performance demands between active duty military personnel and the general population, it is difficult to define if changes in diagnostic and outcome assessment evaluations in the military population reflect worsening or progression of symptoms at the same rate and magnitude observed in the general population.
Endpoint 2. The investigators will establish a comparison among study test results (DHI, ABC, CDP and NOTC) and compare these to clinical measures of response to treatment (Neurobehavioral Symptom Inventory - vestibular domain and Patients' Global Impression of Change Scale) to identify the rate and magnitude of change in the military cohort.
Aim 3. To compare scoring differences between subjects receiving individualized vestibular rehabilitation treatment (IVRT) and subjects receiving generalized vestibular rehabilitation treatment (GVRT), and to calculate the magnitude of change or the lack of it to determine the sample size for a subsequent comparative effectiveness trial.
Hypothesis 3. The combination of tests used in this study has not been used before; therefore, no data is available to calculate the sample size needed to determine comparative effectiveness between GVRT vs IVRT using DHI, ABC, CDP and NOTC.
Endpoint 3. The investigators will compare DHI, ABC, CDP and NOTC measurement results between treatment groups to estimate normal variation.
Aim 4. To refine methods, procedures, and information parameters for a comparative effectiveness trial assessing individualized vs. generalized vestibular rehabilitation therapy.
Endpoint 4. The investigators will evaluate and compare different elements inherent to the trial such as mechanisms of subject identification, evaluation times and tolerance, information tracking, etc. along with data obtained through the Patient Satisfaction Survey (PSS).
Inclusion Criteria:
Exclusion Criteria: