首页> 外文期刊>International journal of language & communication disorders >UK speech and language therapists’ views and reported practices of discourse analysis in aphasia rehabilitation
【24h】

UK speech and language therapists’ views and reported practices of discourse analysis in aphasia rehabilitation

机译:英国言语和语言治疗师的观点和报告的性腺康复中的话语分析实践

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Abstract Background Discourse assessment and treatment in aphasia rehabilitation is a priority focus for a range of stakeholder groups. However, a significant majority of speech and language therapists (SLTs) infrequently conduct discourse analysis, and do not feel competent in doing so. Known barriers identified in other countries, specifically a lack of time, training, expertise and resources, affect use of discourse analysis in clinical practice. Aims To investigate UK SLTs’ reported practices and views of discourse analysis, barriers and facilitators, and clinical feasibility in aphasia rehabilitation. Methods & Procedures An online survey of 52 questions adapted from existing research and incorporating behaviour change literature was created for the study and piloted. UK SLTs working in aphasia rehabilitation for at least 6 months were invited to participate. Potential participants were contacted through national and local clinical excellence networks, a National Health Service (NHS) bespoke e‐mail list, and national magazine advertisement, and the study was also advertised on social media (Twitter). Therapists read an online participant information sheet and submitted individual electronic consent online; then progressed to the Qualtrics survey. Descriptive, correlational and inferential statistical analyses were conducted, and content analysis was carried out on the questions requiring text. Outcomes & Results A total of 211 valid responses were received from primarily female SLTs, aged 20–40 years, working full‐time in the NHS in England, in community, inpatient and acute/subacute multidisciplinary settings. A total of 30% SLTs collected discourse analysis often, were mostly very experienced, and working part‐time in community settings. Years of experience was predictive of use. Discourse was most often collected using standardized picture descriptions and recounts during initial assessment. Samples were infrequently recorded, and typically transcribed in real‐time. Most SLTs (53–95%) reported making clinical judgements or manually counted words, sentences, communication of ideas and errors, and were confident in doing so. Barriers included time constraints; lack of expertise, confidence, training, resources and equipment; and patient severity. Discourse ‘super‐users’ were distinguished by significantly higher professional motivation for discourse and workplace opportunity than other SLTs, and ‘non‐users’ were distinguished by significantly less knowledge and skills in discourse analysis than other SLTs. SLTs reported a desire and need for training, new/assistive tools and time to do more discourse analysis in practice. Conclusions & Implications Clinicians were highly engaged and relatively active in at least some aspects of discourse analysis practice. Interventions that target individual clinicians as well as organizations and systems are needed to improve the uptake of discourse analysis in practice. What this paper adds What is already known on the subject? Discourse in aphasia rehabilitation is a priority in clinical practice and research. However, the majority of clinicians infrequently collect and analyse discourse. Research in Australia and the United States indicated that lack of time, assessment resources and relevant knowledge and skills are the main barriers to use. What this paper adds to existing knowledge Compared with existing research, UK SLTs were more likely to see discourse analysis as part of their role and experienced fewer barriers, and more SLTs did it at least sometimes in clinic. However, practices were limited by lack of training, giving rise to challenges in selecting and interpreting findings for clients. More use was predicted by more experience and commitment to discourse analysis, particularly where workplaces supported this approach. Less use was associated with less knowledge and skills in discourse analysis. Practice and decision‐making were
机译:摘要背景文话语评估和治疗康复康复是一系列利益相关者群体的优先焦点。然而,大多数言语和语言治疗师(SLTS)很少进行话语分析,并且不觉得这样做。在其他国家/地区确定的已知障碍,特别是缺乏时间,培训,专业知识和资源,影响临床实践中的话语分析。旨在调查英国SCTS的报告的话语分析,障碍和促进者的看法,以及在失语症康复中的临床可行性。方法&程序为该研究创建了对52个问题的在线调查,采用现有的研究和纳入行为改变文献,为该研究创建并试用。邀请至少6个月在失语症康复中进行的英国STTS参加。通过国家和当地临床卓越网络,国家卫生服务(NHS)定制电子邮件列表和国家杂志广告,并在社交媒体(Twitter)上宣传了潜在的参与者。治疗师阅读在线参与者信息表并在线提交个人电子同意;然后进展到高质量的调查。进行了描述性,相关性和推理统计分析,并在需要文本的问题上进行内容分析。结果&结果共有211名有效响应,主要从20 - 40年来,年龄在英格兰的NHS,在社区,住院和急性/亚级多学科设置中全职工作。总共30%的SCTS收集了语篇分析,主要经验丰富,并且在社区环境中兼职。多年的经验是预测的使用。最常用的话语是使用标准化的图片描述收集的,并在初始评估期间述评。样品被蓄目不经过,并且通常在实时转录。大多数SCTS(53-95%)报告临床判断或手动计算的单词,句子,思想和错误的沟通,并相信这样做。障碍包括时间限制;缺乏专业知识,信心,培训,资源和设备;和患者的严重程度。话语的“超级用户”是卓越的话语和工作场所机会的专业动力,而不是其他杂志,并在话语分析中的知识和技能方面的知识和技能明显更高。 SCTS报告了培训,新/辅助工具和时间在实践中进行更多的话语分析。结论&在话语分析实践的至少一些方面,暗示临床医生在至少某些方面都有高度从事,相对活跃。需要针对个体临床医生以及组织和系统的干预措施,以改善在实践中的话语分析的摄取。本文在主题上添加了已知的内容是什么?失语症康复的话语是临床实践和研究的优先事项。然而,大多数临床医生很少收集和分析话语。澳大利亚和美国的研究表明,缺乏时间,评估资源和相关知识和技能是使用的主要障碍。本文增加了现有知识与现有研究相比,英国SNTS更有可能将话语分析视为其作用的一部分,并且经历了较少的障碍,并且更多的SLTS至少有时在诊所。但是,缺乏培训的实践受到限制,从而导致选择和解释客户的调查结果来挑战。通过更多的经验和对话语分析的承诺来预测更多使用,特别是在该工作场所支持这种方法的情况下。使用较少的使用与话语分析中的知识和技能较少。实践和决策是

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号