Speech–language therapists’ process of including significant others in aphasia rehabilitation
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Although aphasia rehabilitation should include significant others, it is currently unknown how this recommendation is adopted in speech-language therapy practice. Speech-language therapists' (SLTs) experience of including significant others in aphasia rehabilitation is also understudied, yet a better understanding of clinical reality would be necessary to facilitate implementation of best evidence pertaining to family interventions. AIMS: To explore the process through which SLTs work with significant others of people with aphasia in rehabilitation settings. METHODS & PROCEDURES: Individual semi-structured interviews were conducted with eight SLTs who had been working with persons with aphasia in rehabilitation centres for at least 1 year. Grounded theory principles were applied in analysing interview transcripts. OUTCOMES & RESULTS: A theoretical model was developed representing SLTs' process of working with significant others of persons with aphasia in rehabilitation. Including significant others was perceived as challenging, yet a bonus to their fundamental patient-centred approach. Basic interventions with significant others when they were available included information sharing. If necessary, significant others were referred to social workers or psychologists or the participants collaborated with those professionals. Participants rarely and only under specific conditions provided significant others with language exercises or trained them to communicate better with the aphasic person. As a result, even if participants felt satisfied with their efforts to offer family and friends interventions, they also had unachieved ideals, such as having more frequent contacts with significant others. CONCLUSIONS & IMPLICATIONS: If SLTs perceived work with significant others as a feasible necessity, rather than as a challenging bonus, they could be more inclined to include family and friends within therapy with the aim to improve their communication with the person with aphasia. SLTs could also be more satisfied with their practice. In order to operate these changes in perceptions, we suggest that SLT curriculums include in-depth training about family intervention, a redefinition of the concept of patient, and exploration of SLTs' beliefs and emotions related to significant others.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle