Dataset Information

Evaluation of a community of practice for speech-language pathologists in aphasia rehabilitation: a logic analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Aphasia is a communication disorder affecting participation. Although there are evidence-based practice recommendations about participation and aphasia rehabilitation, it may be challenging for speech-language pathologists to ensure that rehabilitation activities have an impact on the person's participation, in part due to time limitations. Participation remains limited after rehabilitation for persons who have aphasia. Communities of practice (CoPs) are a collaborative knowledge transfer strategy that can be used for evidence-based practice implementation. The aim of this study was to describe the components and evaluate a CoP for speech-language pathologists about participation and aphasia rehabilitation.

Methods

Logic analysis was used to determine the adequacy between resources, implemented activities, outputs and short-term outcomes of the CoP. Qualitative and quantitative descriptive data were collected through observation and participants' logbooks. Outputs and outcomes of the CoP were revealed through thematic analysis and interpretation of descriptive statistics.

Results

Resources including CoP design and educational aims, human and material resources were combined to create various web-based, online and offline activities. Participants invested more time per week than expected in the CoP, shared and created clinical tools and appreciated the array of suggested activities. Participant engagement allowed them to reflect, interact and collaborate with each other. All 13 participants reported they acquired knowledge about clinical tools and 12 mentioned they reflected on their practice. While the CoP was ongoing, six participants noticed evidence-practice gaps, seven prepared to change their practice, and three changed their practice towards including more participation-based considerations.

Conclusions

This study showed that speech-language pathologists can include more participation-based approaches in aphasia rehabilitation as a result of participating in a time-bound, web-based CoP.

SUBMITTER: Alary Gauvreau C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6664764 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Evaluation of a community of practice for speech-language pathologists in aphasia rehabilitation: a logic analysis.

Alary Gauvreau Christine C Le Dorze Guylaine G Kairy Dahlia D Croteau Claire C

BMC health services research 20190729 1

<h4>Background</h4>Aphasia is a communication disorder affecting participation. Although there are evidence-based practice recommendations about participation and aphasia rehabilitation, it may be challenging for speech-language pathologists to ensure that rehabilitation activities have an impact on the person's participation, in part due to time limitations. Participation remains limited after rehabilitation for persons who have aphasia. Communities of practice (CoPs) are a collaborative knowle ...[more]

PMID: 31358002

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAphasia is an acquired language impairment following brain damage that affects some or all language modalities: expression and understanding of speech, reading, and writing. Approximately one third of people who have a stroke experience aphasia.ObjectivesTo assess the effects of speech and language therapy (SLT) for aphasia following stroke.Search methodsWe searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (last searched 9 September 2015), CENTRAL (2015, Issue 5) and other Cochrane Library Databases (CDSR, DARE, HTA, to 22 September 2015), MEDLINE (1946 to September 2015), EMBASE (1980 to September 2015), CINAHL (1982 to September 2015), AMED (1985 to September 2015), LLBA (1973 to September 2015), and SpeechBITE (2008 to September 2015). We also searched major trials registers for ongoing trials including ClinicalTrials.gov (to 21 September 2015), the Stroke Trials Registry (to 21 September 2015), Current Controlled Trials (to 22 September 2015), and WHO ICTRP (to 22 September 2015). In an effort to identify further published, unpublished, and ongoing trials we also handsearched the International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders (1969 to 2005) and reference lists of relevant articles, and we contacted academic institutions and other researchers. There were no language restrictions.Selection criteriaRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing SLT (a formal intervention that aims to improve language and communication abilities, activity and participation) versus no SLT; social support or stimulation (an intervention that provides social support and communication stimulation but does not include targeted therapeutic interventions); or another SLT intervention (differing in duration, intensity, frequency, intervention methodology or theoretical approach).Data collection and analysisWe independently extracted the data and assessed the quality of included trials. We sought missing data from investigators.Main resultsWe included 57 RCTs (74 randomised comparisons) involving 3002 participants in this review (some appearing in more than one comparison). Twenty-seven randomised comparisons (1620 participants) assessed SLT versus no SLT; SLT resulted in clinically and statistically significant benefits to patients' functional communication (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.06 to 0.49, P = 0.01), reading, writing, and expressive language, but (based on smaller numbers) benefits were not evident at follow-up. Nine randomised comparisons (447 participants) assessed SLT with social support and stimulation; meta-analyses found no evidence of a difference in functional communication, but more participants withdrew from social support interventions than SLT. Thirty-eight randomised comparisons (1242 participants) assessed two approaches to SLT. Functional communication was significantly better in people with aphasia that received therapy at a high intensity, high dose, or over a long duration compared to those that received therapy at a lower intensity, lower dose, or over a shorter period of time. The benefits of a high intensity or a high dose of SLT were confounded by a significantly higher dropout rate in these intervention groups. Generally, trials randomised small numbers of participants across a range of characteristics (age, time since stroke, and severity profiles), interventions, and outcomes.Authors' conclusionsOur review provides evidence of the effectiveness of SLT for people with aphasia following stroke in terms of improved functional communication, reading, writing, and expressive language compared with no therapy. There is some indication that therapy at high intensity, high dose or over a longer period may be beneficial. HIgh-intensity and high dose interventions may not be acceptable to all.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Speech and language therapy provision for aphasia (a language disorder) post stroke has been studied over time through surveys completed by speech and language therapists. This paper revisits provision based on what was received by 278 patients in 21 UK speech and language therapy departments in 2014-2016. AIMS:To explore the speech and language therapy received by community dwelling people with post stroke aphasia in the UK. METHODS AND PROCEDURES:A quantitative content analysis was conducted by two speech and language therapist researchers. Therapy goals recorded were coded into categories and subcategories. Descriptive statistics were used to identify the frequency with which goal categories were targeted, average therapy time received, length and frequency of therapy sessions, personnel involved and mode of delivery. OUTCOMES AND RESULTS:Forty-five percent of participants were in receipt of therapy in the three month window observed. Six goal categories were identified. Rehabilitation was the most frequent (60%) followed by enabling (17.2%), review (4.3%), assessment (3.6%), supportive (3.5%) and activity to support therapy (2.8%). The median amount of therapy received in three months was 6.3 hours at an average of one 60-minute session every two weeks. Seventy-seven percent of therapy sessions were delivered by qualified speech and language therapists and 23% by assistants. Ninety percent of sessions were one to one, face to face sessions whilst 9.5% were group sessions. DISCUSSION:In line with previous reports, speech and language therapy for community dwelling stroke survivors with aphasia is restricted. Rehabilitation is a large focus of therapy but the intensity and dose with which it is provided is substantially lower than that required for an effective outcome. Despite this, one to one face to face therapy is favoured. More efficient methods to support more therapeutic doses of therapy are not commonly used in routine clinical services.

Project description:PurposeThe study aimed to investigate changes in the role of speech-language pathologists (SLPs) during the COVID-19 pandemic in Saudi Arabia. It also assessed the SLPs' perceptions of delivering services using telehealth as a part of their everyday clinical practice before and during the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodSLPs in Saudi Arabia were invited to complete a web-based survey covering questions related to changes to the role of SLPs during the COVID-19 pandemic, changes in the ways speech services are delivered; and the benefits and barriers of using telehealth in clinical practice as identified by SLPs.ResultsNinety-one SLPs completed the survey. About 94% of the respondents experienced changes in their role as a response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The nature of changes they had experienced including decreased work time, providing support and counseling to patients or caregivers using the telephone, providing assessment and therapy using telehealth, and working with a limited number of cases. Ninety-three percent of the respondents who have used telehealth started to use it only during the pandemic. Mostly seen caseloads were pediatric speech and language disorders. Further, 96% of respondents used telehealth for counseling, 69% for rehabilitation or treatment, 63% for screening, 56% for evaluation or assessment, 48% for a referral to other professional services, and 46% for differential diagnosis. About 70% of the SLPs showed interest to continue using telehealth in the future. Several benefits were identified to using telehealth, including accessibility, cost efficiency, and the ability to engage patients with their families in therapy sessions. On the other hand, barriers to using telehealth included internet and technical issues, lack of direct communication, and difficulty controlling the therapy setting.ConclusionsThe study has shown that SLPs in Saudi Arabia have experienced changes during the COVID-19 outbreak. The survey responses also indicate that the SLPs are adopting telehealth applications at an accelerated pace as a result of the pandemic.

Dataset Information

Evaluation of a community of practice for speech-language pathologists in aphasia rehabilitation: a logic analysis.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Evaluation of a community of practice for speech-language pathologists in aphasia rehabilitation: a logic analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets