An Interprofessional Communication Training Program to Improve Nurses’ Ability to Communicate With Stroke Patients With Communication Disorders
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of the study was to evaluate change in nurses' knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors after an Interprofessional (IP) Communication Training Program designed to improve nurses' ability to communicate with stroke rehabilitation inpatients with communication disorders. DESIGN/METHODS: A quasi-experimental longitudinal study was conducted to evaluate an IP Communication Training Program consisting of a full-day and booster workshop and speech language pathologist support for nurses. The Communication Impairment Questionnaire and the Providers Interactional Comfort Survey were collected prior to and 3 months and 1 year postintervention. Focus groups assessing program acceptability were conducted. RESULTS: Forty-six nurses participated. The Communication Impairment Questionnaire significantly improved postintervention (p = .001), but not at 1 year follow-up (3.76, p = .123). The Providers Interactional Comfort Survey significantly improved postintervention (p = .001) and remained significant 1 year later (8.84, p = .03). Focus groups indicated high acceptability and reported that the education increased their confidence and reduced their frustration. CONCLUSION: Nurses' attitudes toward and knowledge about communication strategies improved, which enhances their ability to care for stroke patients with communication disorders. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Interdisciplinary workshops and speech language pathologist support appear beneficial to nurses working with patients with communication disorders.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it