Speech–language therapists’ process of including significant others in aphasia rehabilitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.025 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".