Finding common ground: Exploring speech language pathologists’ experiences of collaboration with music therapists in treating people living with aphasia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this phenomenological study was to investigate speechlanguage pathologists’ (SLPs’) experiences of collaboration with music therapists (MTs) in treating people with aphasia. Our analysis of the data yielded mixed outcomes, highlighting/identifying aspects that support and challenge collaboration. Data was collected using semi-structured interviews with three participants. The participants were SLPs who had experience treating people with aphasia in hospital and community-based settings. Thematic analysis was used to identify components of MT-SLP collaborations in treating aphasia. Results revealed the following themes: personal and clinical aspects, and systemic challenges of MT-SLP collaborations. Participants’ feedback on the thematic analysis was incorporated into the discussion which presents insights into the overarching qualities of successful MT-SLP collaboration and the contributions of music in aphasia treatment. This research provides a list of music interventions which may be a resource for SLPs and MTs in treating aphasia. Additionally, topics discussed in this research may assist SLPs and MTs in advocating for collaborative care of people living with aphasia.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".