Search

Background: Spoken discourse impairments post‐traumatic brain injury (TBI) are well‐documented and heterogeneous in nature. These impairments have chronic implications for adults in terms of employment, socializing and community involvement. Intervention delivered by a speech–language pathologist (SLP) is recommended for adults with discourse impairments post‐TBI, with an emphasis on context‐sensitive treatment. The developing evidence base indicates a wide array of treatment components for SLPs to evaluate and implement within their clinical practice. However, there is limited insight into how SLPs are currently treating discourse impairments and the rationales informing clinical practice. Aims: To explore the under‐researched area of clinical practice for spoken discourse interventions with adults post‐TBI, including treatment components and clinician rationales, and to contribute towards a shared knowledge base. Methods & Procedures: Participants were recruited via purposeful sampling strategies. Six SLPs participated from Australia, the United Kingdom (UK) and the United States (US). Semi‐structured interviews were conducted via Zoom. Interviews were manually transcribed, coded and analysed via a qualitative content analysis approach. Outcomes & Results: :Participants described discourse treatment practices across various settings and TBI recovery stages. Results indicated that SLPs used numerous treatment activities, resources and outcome measures. Intervention approaches primarily targeted social communication skills, strategy development/utilization and insight‐building. Clinical practice conformed to available guidelines where possible, reflected best practice and incorporated components of the research literature. Participants reported using individualized treatment activities aimed at addressing client‐specific factors and rationales prioritized tailored, context‐sensitive and goal‐directed treatment. Conclusions & Implications: This study provided insight into a previously under‐researched area. It highlighted a wide range of treatment activities and factors informing current SLPs' treatment of spoken discourse impairment post‐TBI. Overall, clinical practice and rationales discussed in this study were aligned with best practice and emphasized a contextualized, individualized approach to discourse treatment across service settings and stages of recovery. Participants identified areas requiring further support, including access to training, resources and research, and the challenge of finding suitable outcome measures. Further investigation into discourse management post‐TBI, from initial assessment to outcome measurement, may help inform clinical decision‐making and the transfer of research to practice. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: What is already known on the subject: Spoken discourse impairments occur in dialogic and monologic productions post‐TBI. Interventions targeting both genres are detailed within the research literature; however, studies exploring clinical practice and decision‐making for discourse interventions post‐TBI are limited. What this paper adds to existing knowledge: This study provides new insight into the current treatment targets, activities, resources and outcome measures employed by clinicians supporting adults with discourse impairment post‐TBI. It details the factors that influence clinical decision‐making for this caseload and identifies an emphasis on client priorities and the value of clinician experience. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work?: This study identifies the broad and complex considerations required to deliver context‐sensitive discourse intervention post‐TBI. It indicates the need for an in‐depth review from assessment to treatment outcomes to better understand and support this area of practice and to direct future research. This study also highlighted the role of clinician experience in discourse intervention and the value of sharing clinical knowledge and resources within and across the profession to support all levels of clinician experience. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Impaired discourse production is commonly reported for individuals with traumatic brain injury (TBI). Discourse deficits can negatively impact community integration, return to employment and quality of life. COVID‐19 restrictions have reduced in‐person assessment services for people with communication impairments. Advances in telehealth may help speech and language therapists (SLTs) to assess monologic discourse more systematically and improve access to services for patients who may find it difficult to attend in‐person. Aims: To examine the feasibility of telehealth administration of narrative and procedural discourse tasks with individuals with TBI and matched controls. Methods & Procedures: A total of 20 individuals with TBI and 20 healthy controls, aged 18–55 years, were directly recruited from the UK and indirectly recruited from the US. For participants with TBI, time post‐injury was at least 3 months with no diagnosis of aphasia. Control participants were matched for sex and as closely as possible for age. Feasibility of measures was based upon the time to administer both narrative tasks, the report of any technological problems, and participant feed. Discourse samples were transcribed verbatim and analysed using story grammar analysis (for narrative discourse) and identification of propositions (for procedural discourse). Interrater reliability was calculated using percentage agreement for 50% of the data. Non‐parametric analyses were used to analyse the performance of the two groups. Outcomes & Results: Narrative and procedural discourse samples were collected via telehealth in approximately 10 min with no reported technical difficulties or complaints from any participants. For narrative discourse performance, there were significant differences for the TBI and control groups for measures of complete episodes (p < 0.001) and missing episodes (p = 0.005). No significant group differences were noted for any of the procedural discourse measures. Conclusions & Implications: Results support the feasibility of collecting discourse samples via telehealth. Although the participants' discourse performance distinguished the TBI and control groups on the narrative task, no differences between the groups were noted for the procedural task. The narrative discourse task may have been more difficult than the procedural task, or video cue support reduced the cognitive load of the procedural task. This finding suggests the use of more complex procedural tasks without video cue support may be needed. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: What is already known on this subject: Although little research has explored the feasibility of administering discourse assessments for individuals with TBI via telehealth, some studies have found that discourse interventions can be feasibly administered via telehealth. It is also well established that individuals with TBI struggle with the supra‐structural and macro‐linguistic elements of discourse production. Both procedural and narrative discourse tasks have been found to differentiate individuals with TBI from healthy controls. What this paper adds to existing knowledge: Few studies have investigated the feasibility of, and procedures for, administering discourse tasks via telehealth. Additionally, the inclusion of multiple types of discourse tasks to parse cognitive–communication abilities is lacking in the current literature. Findings from this study support that narrative and procedural discourse can be feasibly sampled via telehealth and that international collaboration for research on this topic can facilitate such studies. Individuals with TBI performed more poorly on three measures of narrative discourse. No differences between groups were identified for the procedural task. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work?: Telehealth assessment for discourse provides flexibility for both the individual with TBI and the speech–language therapist and does not compromise the quality of data collected. The administration of discourse tasks and collection of data was not time‐consuming and was well accepted by the study participants. Additionally, international research collaboration not only expands potential participation in research but increases the opportunity to recruit and study more diverse groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Online knowledge translation (KT) approaches are becoming increasingly prevalent within healthcare due to their accessibility and facilitation of international support networks. Online platforms enable timely and far‐reaching dissemination of current evidence and best‐practice recommendations. Although there is potential to improve the uptake of rehabilitation guidelines, it is essential to consider the acceptability of online approaches to healthcare professionals to ensure their successful integration within everyday clinical settings. Aims: To establish the prospective acceptability of a theoretically informed online intervention for speech pathologists, Aphasia Nexus: Connecting Evidence to Practice, that aims to facilitate the implementation of aphasia best practice. Methods & Procedures: A mixed‐methods multinational electronic survey based on the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability (TFA) completed by aphasia researchers and clinicians. Outcomes & Results: A total of 43 participants completed the survey with 91% (n = 39) indicating that they would use Aphasia Nexus. Understanding the intervention and how it works (intervention coherence as per the TFA) was the key factor influencing the likelihood of integration within everyday clinical practice. Participants identified potential areas where the intervention could influence service change and also recommended further design and content changes to improve the intervention. Conclusions & Implications: Aphasia Nexus is an acceptable platform for further feasibility testing in the form of a pilot trial within an Australian‐based health service. The study progresses the theory of TFA as it was a valuable framework facilitating the identification of prominent factors influencing acceptability. The study also informs further intervention refinements in preparation for the next stage of research. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: What is already known on the subject: Online strategies have the potential to enhance KT and promote the uptake of rehabilitation guidelines. An online intervention, however, can only be effective if implemented well. For this reason, it is essential to establish the acceptability of online interventions to the intended recipients and therefore increase the likelihood of successful implementation. What this paper adds to existing knowledge: This study used a theoretically based framework to establish the acceptability of an online implementation intervention, Aphasia Nexus, to multinational aphasia clinicians and researchers. It demonstrated the value in identifying the prominent factors influencing acceptability to inform further intervention refinements and warrant continuing research. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work?: Speech pathologists should use online platforms to drive the implementation of best practice on an international scale. It is important for clinicians to have an in‐depth understanding of online interventions and how they work to enhance their successful uptake into routine clinical practice. Aphasia Nexus is an acceptable online platform for implementing best practice in aphasia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The involvement of speech and language therapists (SLTs) within paediatric palliative care (PPC) settings has been recognized within the extant literature. However, there is little understanding of SLT's specific roles and practices when working with this vulnerable cohort of children and their families. As part of a larger body of work to develop consensus‐based recommendations for SLTs working in PPC, it is important to investigate demographic and caseload characteristics. Aims: This exploratory study aimed to gather previously undocumented international demographic data pertaining to SLT service provision, caseload and training in PPC. Additionally, it sought to ascertain the current treatment and assessment approaches of SLTs, and if variations exist in beliefs and practices. Methods & Procedures: An anonymous cross‐sectional survey was designed and reported according to the Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E‐Surveys (CHERRIES). The online survey consisted of 40 items spanning four domains: (1) demographic information, (2) caseload information, (3) service provision and (4) training and education. SLTs from Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the UK, Ireland and the United States were recruited using a purposive snowball sampling approach. Descriptive analysis of closed‐ended survey responses and content analysis of open‐ended responses are presented. Outcomes & Results: A total of 52 respondents completed the survey. SLTs worked in a variety of PPC settings, with patients of varying age and disease groups. Over 50% of participants reported working in PPC for ≤ 4 years. Genetic disorders (34%), oncology (27%) and neurological conditions (21%) made up a significant portion of respondents' caseloads. Reported treatments and assessment approaches used by SLTs are not unique to a PPC population. Barriers and enablers for practice were identified. A portion of participants did not feel trained and prepared to assess (19.2%) or treat (15.4%) PPC clients. Conclusions & Implications: This study confirms that SLTs internationally have a role in the management of communication and swallowing impairments in a PPC context. However, whether current training and resources adequately support SLTs in this role remains questionable. This paper helps to provide SLTs, administrators, professional associations and tertiary institutions with foundational data to help inform workforce planning, advocacy efforts and training priorities. What this paper addsWhat is already known on the subjectThe published multidisciplinary literature has identified that SLTs have a role in PPC. However, there has been no targeted research investigating the professional characteristics of clinicians in this context, nor any detailed information regarding associated clinician beliefs or management approaches.What this paper adds to existing knowledgeThis study is a snapshot of attributes, practice patterns and beliefs of SLTs who work with a PPC population. It highlights SLT perspectives of education and training, as well as meta‐perceptions of themselves within the multidisciplinary team.What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work?Data presented in this paper will help to enable SLTs, organizations and associations to augment service provision and determine future professional development priorities within the field of PPC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Speech–language therapists use counselling to address the psychological well‐being of people affected by post‐stroke aphasia. Speech–language therapists report low counselling knowledge, skill and confidence for working in post‐stroke aphasia which may be related to a lack of counselling training specific to the needs of this client group. Aims: To identify current training in counselling for speech–language therapists to address psychological well‐being in people affected by post‐stroke aphasia. Specifically, the intent was to establish the objectives, content, amount, teaching methods and outcomes of counselling training provided to speech–language therapists working with people affected by post‐stroke aphasia. Methods & Procedures: Eleven databases were searched from inception to January 2018 using terms relating to counselling, psychological well‐being, speech–language therapy, stroke, aphasia and training. Studies using any research methodology and design were included. Nine studies were critically appraised and synthesized as a systematic review using the Search, AppraisaL, Synthesis and Analysis (SALSA) framework. Main Contribution: Information on counselling training came from the UK, United States and Australia. Student speech–language therapists received training in goal‐setting and generic counselling skills. After qualification, speech–language therapists received counselling training from mental health professionals within stroke workplaces, from external providers and further education. A range of teaching techniques and counselling approaches were described. Self‐report and themes from qualitative data were the primary measures of counselling training outcomes. Moderate correlations were reported between counselling training and levels of speech–language therapists' knowledge, comfort, confidence and preparedness to counsel people affected by post‐stroke aphasia. Conclusions: Research in counselling training for speech–language therapists working in post‐stroke aphasia is limited, with a small number of primarily low‐quality studies available. Training in generic counselling skills and brief psychological approaches with support from mental health professionals in the stroke workplace enabled speech–language therapists to feel knowledgeable, skilled and confident to address the psychological well‐being of people affected by post‐stroke aphasia. Evidence about the effectiveness of counselling training on speech–language therapists' confidence and competence in practice and on client outcomes in psychological well‐being in post‐stroke aphasia is required. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The assessment of adequate upper oesophageal sphincter (UOS) opening during swallowing is an integral component of dysphagia evaluation. Aims: To ascertain speech and language therapists' (SLTs) satisfaction with current methods for assessing UOS function in people with dysphagia and to identify challenges encountered by SLTs with UOS evaluation. Methods & Procedures: A survey was disseminated to 82 SLT managers in Ireland; to two dysphagia Special Interest Groups in the UK; and to the Royal College of Speech & Language Therapists' Bulletin periodical. A survey link was also posted on the American Speech and Hearing Association (ASHA) Division 13 (Dysphagia) web forum. Outcomes & Results: Surveys from 224 SLTs with active dysphagia caseloads were included in data analysis. Only 17.9% (40/224) of SLTs were satisfied with the accuracy and reliability of UOS evaluations currently being employed in dysphagia practice. Satisfaction with current UOS evaluation was not associated with the level of clinical experience ( r= 0.078; p= 0.246). Eighty-seven per cent (195/224) of SLTs working with dysphagia experience challenges in UOS evaluation. Challenges reported include lack of resources/equipment (55.9%), limited quantitative information (45.6%), lack of training (41%) and knowledge (39%) in UOS function, and limited multidisciplinary team involvement (34%). Conclusions & Implications: SLTs across all levels of clinical experience are not satisfied with current UOS evaluation in dysphagia practice. Based on the specific challenges identified, recommendations to progress SLT evaluation of UOS function in people with dysphagia are proposed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]