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 Study: Technology‐supported learning environments, act as significant observational and enabling indicators for evaluating and encouraging the digital revolution of education, are of vital importance in current educational research. Keeping track of the dynamics of technology‐supported learning environment research allows for the enrichment of theoretical studies and a prompt innovation of talent‐training environments. Objectives: The present study carried out a bibliometric analysis of the core collection of WoS database over the last two decades. Method: This study is a bibliometric research. We applied CiteSpace and VOSviewer for co‐occurrence and evolution analysis. In addition, we extracted the fundamental ideas and thoughts through reading and analysis. Results: First, the study found that technology‐supported learning environment research is in a growth phase, with core journals such as Interactive Learning Environments or Computers & Education. The findings show that a core research team comprised of such scholars as Hwang Gwo‐Jen, Lester James C. and Wong Lung‐Hsiang. Key nations of publishing and research strength are from China, the United States, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. Second, the hot topics in research on technology‐supported learning environments were virtual learning environments, technology‐enabled learning environments and interactive learning environments. Nine study specifics were derived from these three topics such as moulding function, generating scenario, stimulating sensation, effect verification, design idea, research reflection, inquiry and research, virtual community, and mixed environment. Lastly, the frontier evolution offers a pattern of development from enhancing performance to changing mode to incorporating experience. Conclusion: Looking ahead, our research recommendations for the field of technology‐supported learning environments include a multifaceted approach. We should aim to enhance research designs and methodologies, develop contemporary guiding theories and strive for a balanced representation across various educational domains, expanding our scope to encompass all academic disciplines. In terms of practical application, it is imperative to focus on the design and implementation of technology‐supported learning environments from three critical perspectives: "change‐demand," "student‐learning" and "online‐offline." These approaches will collectively ensure that technology‐supported learning environments are both innovative and responsive to the diverse needs of the educational landscape. Lay Description: What is already known about this topic: Technology‐supported learning environments are currently a focal and hot research topic in the field of education.Although numerous studies have been conducted on the learning environment of technical support, there has yet to be a systematic and comprehensive review of the related research. What this paper adds: This study provides a comprehensive review of research on the technology‐supported learning environments over the past two decades.This study primarily presents an overview of research on the technology‐supported learning environments over the past two decades, focusing on main literature, research strength, hot topics and frontier evolution. Implications for practice and/or policy: Researchers need to further advance research on technology‐supported learning environments by enriching research designs and methods, constructing up‐to‐date guiding theories and achieving a balance across different educational domains while extending the reach to all disciplines.Educational practitioners need to pay attention to the design and implementation of technology‐supported learning environments from the three viewpoints of "change‐demand," "student‐learning" and "online‐offline." [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: In celebration of the journal's 50th anniversary, the aim of the study was to review the whole collection of Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology (CDOE) publications from 1973 to 2022 and provide a complete overview of the main publication characteristics. Methods: The study used bibliometric techniques such as performance and science mapping analysis of 3428 articles extracted from the Scopus database. The data were analysed using the 'Bibliometrix' package in R. The journal's scientific production was examined, along with the yearly citation count, the distribution of publications based on authors, the corresponding author's country and affiliation and citation count, citing source and keywords. Bibliometric network maps were constructed to determine the conceptual, intellectual and social collaborative structure over the past 50 years. The trending research topics and themes were identified. Results: The total number of articles and average citations has increased over the years. D Locker, AJ Spencer, A Sheiham and WM Thomson were the most frequently published authors, and PE Petersen, GD Slade and AI Ismail published papers with the highest citations. The most published countries were the United States, United Kingdom, Brazil and Canada, frequently engaging in collaborative efforts. The most common keywords used were 'dental caries', 'oral epidemiology' and 'oral health'. The trending topics were healthcare and health disparities, social determinants of health, systematic review and health inequalities. Epidemiology, oral health and disparities were highly researched areas. Conclusion: This bibliometric study reviews CDOE's significant contribution to dental public health by identifying key research trends, themes, influential authors and collaborations. The findings provide insights into the need to increase publications from developing countries, improve gender diversity in authorship and broaden the scope of research themes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]