Communicative access and decision making for people with aphasia: Implementing sustainable healthcare systems change
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Communicative access to information and decision making in health care appears limited for people with aphasia in spite of research demonstrating that communicative participation can be enhanced with skilled communication partners and appropriate resources. In order to address this concern, a project was designed to target the “systems” level of health care via a multi‐faceted, team‐based intervention called the Communicate Access Improvement Project (CAIP). Aims: This project aimed to improve communicative access to information and decision making for people with aphasia within three healthcare systems (i.e., acute care, rehabilitation, long‐term care) by increasing teams members' knowledge of and skill in providing communicative supports and by facilitating the implementation of facility‐specific communicative access goals. Methods & Procedures: Three teams representing diverse disciplines participated in the project that included a 2‐day training session for each team, development of institution‐specific communicative access improvement goals and materials, and on‐site follow‐up and support from a project speech‐language pathologist. In order to determine the outcomes of team training and follow‐up, qualitative research methods were employed including observation, focus groups, and open‐ended interviews with team members. Qualitative data were collected before and after the 2‐day skills training and after a 4‐month follow‐up period. Using qualitative thematic analysis the qualitative data were analysed in order to evaluate the training process, to estimate the impact of training on team knowledge, attitude, and practice, and to identify trends, themes, emerging patterns, and primary issues associated with communicative access (Spradley, 1980 Spradley, J. P. 1980. Participant observation, New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. [Google Scholar]). Outcomes & Results: After the 2‐day training, all teams demonstrated increased knowledge of methods of supporting communicative access, and improved understanding of access and inclusion for aphasia. After follow‐up, the rehabilitation and long‐term care teams achieved communicative access improvement goals and identified examples of systems changes and increased participation of people with aphasia within their programmes. They also perceived changes in team member values that supported communicative access. The acute care team reported less success in implementing goals for systems change after the 4‐month follow‐up. Barriers to and facilitators of sustainable system change were identified. Conclusions: Targeting systems‐level change appeared to be a useful approach to improving access to healthcare information and decision making for people with aphasia. The project provided insights into factors that facilitated or impeded communicative access in each healthcare setting and provided valuable information for future interventions designed to improve communicative access for people with aphasia.
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.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,017 | 0,023 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,005 | 0,006 |
| Communication savante | 0,006 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,013 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».