Participant reported outcomes of a community of practice about social participation for speech-language pathologists in aphasia rehabilitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Because of their communication difficulties, persons with aphasia are at risk of not fully participating in significant activities after rehabilitation. Speech-language pathologists can contribute to support optimal social participation in rehabilitation. A community of practice (CoP) was designed to provide motivated clinicians with opportunities to acquire knowledge and reflect on social participation within aphasia rehabilitation. The aim of this study was to describe the outcomes of this CoP according to the perspectives of speech-language pathologist participants. METHODS: Semi-structured individual interviews were conducted 4 to 10 weeks after the end of the CoP with 13 speech-language pathologist participants. Analyses were guided by grounded theory. RESULTS: Participants perceived that the CoP experience contributed to a better alignment of their practice with the ideal end purpose of optimizing social participation. A sense of community emerged among CoP members, who collectively reflected on their practice. Participants stated feeling equipped to adopt new practices, adopting new practices for optimizing social participation, and/or advocating for better services for persons with aphasia. They felt increased confidence, motivation, well-being, and/or energy towards their practice. CONCLUSIONS: CoPs can help speech-language pathologists to more confidently practice with the goal of optimizing the social participation of persons with aphasia.Implications for rehabilitationSpeech-language pathologists in aphasia rehabilitation, as a result of being involved in a community of practice (CoP) about social participation, may offer more evidence-based services aiming at optimizing the social participation of persons with aphasia.Markers of a successful CoP may include participants' increased feelings of confidence, motivation, well-being, and/or energy towards their practice.CoPs can be used for continuing education purposes and support the development of clinical expertise among professionals, such as speech-language pathologists in aphasia rehabilitation.
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 | 0.014 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".