MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401685320 · doi:10.1080/02687038.2024.2392900

Aphasia and acute care: a qualitative study of healthcare provider perspectives

2024· article· en· W4401685320 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueAphasiology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAphasiaHealth carePsychologyQualitative researchMedicineNursingAcute carePsychiatrySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Poor communication between patients with aphasia and healthcare providers has many adverse consequences. Training healthcare providers to support communication not only improves skill in communicating with people with aphasia, but also potentially avoids adverse incidents. However, families have reported negative communication experiences for their relatives with aphasia during early acute hospitalization and healthcare providers in acute hospitals have reported multiple barriers to managing people with aphasia.Aims To gather information from healthcare providers about their experiences and needs relative to managing people with aphasia in the acute hospital setting as part of a larger implementation project designed to 1) improve acute care staff communication with patients with aphasia, and 2) help staff provide support to families of people with aphasia.Methods Qualitative methods were employed to gather perspectives of stroke team staff regarding the management of aphasia in early acute care. Methods for collecting data from staff in a large metropolitan hospital in Ontario, Canada included open-ended surveys, observations on acute stroke units, interviews, and focus groups. Data were transcribed and analyzed to identify themes that defined staff experiences and needs relative to caring for people with aphasia in the acute setting.Results The overall finding was that staff found communication and caring for people with aphasia and their families in the acute context to be challenging and frustrating. Themes included identification of the following barriers: fast-paced context with competing priorities; limited staff familiarity with communication access or support; priority given to swallowing by speech-language pathologists; and difficulty in addressing the pressing need to provide support and information to family members of patients with aphasia. In addition, a pervasive need for communication with patients with aphasia as part of staff responsibilities was also identified as a theme.Conclusions Findings demonstrate the need for healthcare systems to support acute care staff in their efforts to provide care for people with aphasia. Finding effective ways to influence system change is a priority and is in line with the rationale for the larger implementation project designed to improve staff and patient/family experiences in acute care.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.187
Threshold uncertainty score0.450

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.404
Teacher spread0.369 · 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