MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1851671950 · doi:10.1111/1460-6984.12108

Speech–language therapists’ process of including significant others in aphasia rehabilitation

2014· article· en· W1851671950 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Language & Communication Disorders · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
Canadian institutionsCentre for Interdisciplinary Research in RehabilitationUniversité de Montréal
FundersScottish Rite Charitable Foundation of Canada
KeywordsAphasiaRehabilitationPsychologyPsychological interventionSpeech-Language PathologyPsychotherapistApplied psychologyCognitive psychologyPsychiatryPhysical therapyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.111
Threshold uncertainty score0.488

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.326 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it