Obtaining consensus on core components of stuttering intervention for adults: An e‐Delphi Survey with key stakeholders
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: Evidence-based practice involves the synthesis of multiple forms of evidence to inform clinical decision-making and treatment evaluation. Practice- and patient-based evidence are two forms of evidence that are under-represented in the stuttering literature. The collection of such knowledge is essential to support the design and delivery of effective stuttering interventions for adults. AIMS: To build stakeholder consensus on the core components of intervention for adults who stutter, and to establish a guiding framework for the design and development of evidence-based interventions for adults who stutter. METHODS & PROCEDURES: Adults who stutter and speech and language therapists (SLTs) with experience in providing stuttering intervention participated in the three-round e-Delphi Survey focused on: (1) identifying key stuttering intervention components, including principles, practices, and structural and contextual elements; and (2) obtaining group consensus on stuttering intervention components. Statements were categorized using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) model adapted to the study of stuttering. OUTCOMES & RESULTS: A total of 48 individuals agreed to participate: 48/48 (100%) completed the Round 1 questionnaire, 40/48 (83%) responded to Round 2 and 36/40 (90%) participated in Round 3. Following content analysis of Round 1, 101 statements were developed, and consensus was achieved on 89 statements perceived as representing the core components of stuttering intervention for adults. Categorization of these statements reflected the key stuttering intervention components relating to personal reactions to stuttering, limitations in life participation and environmental factors. CONCLUSIONS & IMPLICATIONS: Consensus on the core components of stuttering intervention was reached through engagement with key stakeholders. The evidence-based framework presented highlights the range of key intervention components a clinician should consider when designing interventions for adults who stutter. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: What is already known on the subject Evidence-based practice endorses the synthesis of multiple knowledge forms including research, practice and patient evidence to support clinical decision-making and treatment evaluation. The stuttering literature is characterized by an over-representation of efficacy evidence, with significantly less practice and patient evidence to guide clinical practice. What this paper adds to existing knowledge This study adds valuable practice- and patient-based evidence for effective stuttering intervention components for adults who stutter. These relate to personal reactions to stuttering, limitations in life participation and environmental factors. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work? This research presents a stakeholder-informed framework for stuttering intervention to guide SLTs working with adults who stutter in designing evidence-based interventions. The framework supports the adoption of a person-centred approach to intervention to ensure each client's unique needs, preferences, values and desired outcomes are explored and integrated into therapy.
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 | 0,000 |
| 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