Search

Background: Engagement is recognized as an important factor in aphasia treatment response and outcomes, yet gaps remain in our understanding of engagement and practices that promote engagement from the client perspective. Aims: The purpose of this phenomenological study was to explore how clients with aphasia experience engagement during their inpatient aphasia rehabilitation. Methods & Procedures: An interpretative phenomenological analysis approach guided the study design and analysis. Data were collected through in-depth interviews with nine clients with aphasia, recruited through purposive sampling, during their inpatient rehabilitation admission. Analysis was completed using a variety of analytic techniques including coding, memoing, triangulation between coders and team discussion. Outcomes & Results: The analysis revealed that for clients with aphasia in the acute phrase of recovery, the rehabilitation process resembles travelling on a journey through a foreign land. Successful engagement in the journey was accomplished when one had a therapist who served as a trusted guide and was able to be a friend, invested, adaptable, a co-creator, encouraging and dependable. Conclusions & Implications: Engagement is a dynamic, multifaceted and person-centred process involving the client, provider and rehabilitation context. Findings from this work have implications for measuring engagement, training student clinicians to be skilled facilitators in engaging their clients and implementing person-centred practices that promote engagement within clinical settings.

Background: Engagement is recognized as an important factor in aphasia treatment response and outcomes, yet gaps remain in our understanding of engagement and practices that promote engagement from the client perspective. Aims: The purpose of this phenomenological study was to explore how clients with aphasia experience engagement during their inpatient aphasia rehabilitation. Methods & Procedures: An interpretative phenomenological analysis approach guided the study design and analysis. Data were collected through in‐depth interviews with nine clients with aphasia, recruited through purposive sampling, during their inpatient rehabilitation admission. Analysis was completed using a variety of analytic techniques including coding, memoing, triangulation between coders and team discussion. Outcomes & Results: The analysis revealed that for clients with aphasia in the acute phrase of recovery, the rehabilitation process resembles travelling on a journey through a foreign land. Successful engagement in the journey was accomplished when one had a therapist who served as a trusted guide and was able to be a friend, invested, adaptable, a co‐creator, encouraging and dependable. Conclusions & Implications: Engagement is a dynamic, multifaceted and person‐centred process involving the client, provider and rehabilitation context. Findings from this work have implications for measuring engagement, training student clinicians to be skilled facilitators in engaging their clients and implementing person‐centred practices that promote engagement within clinical settings. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: What is already known on the subject: Engagement is recognized as an important factor in rehabilitation treatment response and outcomes. Prior literature suggests that the therapist plays a critical role in facilitating engagement within the client–provider relationship. Communication impairments associated with aphasia may negatively impact a client's ability to develop interpersonal connections and participate in the rehabilitation process. There is a dearth of research directly exploring the topic of engagement in aphasia rehabilitation, particularly from the perspective of clients with aphasia. Capturing the client perspective can provide novel insights regarding practices to foster and maintain engagement in aphasia rehabilitation. What this paper adds to existing knowledge: This interpretative phenomenological study revealed that for individuals with aphasia in the acute phase of recovery, the rehabilitation process resembles travelling on a sudden and foreign journey. Successful engagement in the journey was accomplished when one had a therapist who served as a 'trusted guide' and was able to be a friend, invested, adaptable, a co‐creator, encouraging and dependable. Through the client experience, engagement is seen as a dynamic, multifaceted and person‐centred process involving the client, provider and rehabilitation context. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work?: The current study highlights the complexity and nuance of engagement within the rehabilitation context, which has implications for measuring engagement, training student clinicians to be skilled in engaging their clients and implementing person‐centred practices that promote engagement within clinical settings. It is necessary to recognize that client and provider interactions (and thus engagement) are embedded in and influenced by the broader healthcare system. With this in mind, a patient‐centred approach to engagement in aphasia care delivery cannot be achieved through individual efforts only and may require prioritization and action at the systems level. Future work is needed to explore barriers and facilitators to enacting engagement practices, in order to develop and test strategies to support practice change. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Best practices in the field of aphasia rehabilitation increasingly acknowledge a whole-person approach that values interventions aimed at reducing impairments, while also recognizing the impact of aphasia on participation and quality of life. Guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), this study aimed to examine whether current clinical practices along levels of service provision reflect this whole-person, multifaceted approach. Method: Speech-language pathologists (SLPs) in the United States who provide intervention to people with aphasia across the continuum of care completed this cross-sectional online survey. Current outcome measurement and treatment practices were evaluated within the Living With Aphasia: Framework for Outcome Measurement via multiple-choice and open-text response questions. Data were analyzed descriptively and using ordinal logistic regression models to compare clinical practices along levels of service provision. Results: Data from 90 SLPs revealed that language and cognitive skills are assessed with equal consistency across clinical settings; however, functional communication, participation, and quality of life domains are prioritized in settings providing care to clients within the community. Psychological well-being is rarely assessed within clinical practice along most of the rehabilitation process and prioritized within the university clinic setting when clients are in the chronic stage of recovery. Conclusions: Clinical practices related to a multifaceted approach to aphasia intervention are variable across levels of service provision. Further exploration of barriers and facilitators to multifaceted aphasia care along the domains of the CFIR is needed to provide an informed approach to implementing change. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The research to practice gap is a significant problem across all disciplines of healthcare. A major challenge associated with the adoption of evidence into routine clinical care is the disconnect between findings that are identified in a controlled research setting, and the needs and challenges of a real-world clinical practice setting. Implementation Science, which is the study of methods to promote research into clinical practice, provides frameworks to promote the translation of findings into practice. To begin to bridge the research-practice gap in assessing recovery in individuals with aphasia in the acute phases of recovery following stroke, clinicians in an acute care hospital and an inpatient rehabilitation hospital followed an implementation science framework to select and implement a standardized language assessment to evaluate early changes in language performance across multiple timepoints. Using a secure online database to track patient data and language metrics, clinically-accessible information was examined to identify predictors of recovery in the acute phases of stroke. We report on the feasibility of implementing such standardized assessments into routine clinical care via measures of adherence. We also report on initial analyses of the data within the database that provide insights into the opportunities to track change. This initiative highlights the feasibility of collecting clinical data using a standardized assessment measure across acute and inpatient rehabilitation care settings. Practice-based evidence may inform future research by contributing pilot data and systematic observations that may lead to the development of empirical studies, which can then feed back into clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study investigated the factors affecting functional outcomes in patients with brain injury, including the relationship between etiology, demographic variables, and recovery trajectory. It is critical to account for these factors to improve treatment interventions and discharge planning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To identify clinician-perceived barriers and facilitators to the delivery of outcome measurement and evidence-based treatment practices and integration of these practices in aphasia rehabilitation., Materials and Methods: Using a convergent mixed methods design, aphasia clinicians ( n  = 87) across care settings in the United States completed an online survey designed within the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). Participants responded to open-ended questions and rated Likert scale statements. Qualitative data were analyzed using content analysis and quantitative data were summarized using descriptive statistics., Results: Factors related to the TDF domain of "environmental context and resources" (priority and productivity demands; characteristics of resources) were cited as primary barriers in 70% of qualitative responses for both outcome and treatment practices and were consistent with Likert rating statements. Facilitators were associated with TDF domains of "memory, attention, decision-making" (decision-making processes), "knowledge" (awareness of evidence) and "social influences" (client and caregiver preferences)., Conclusions: Organizational-level factors and the misalignment of the research evidence with clinical needs are barriers to delivering evidence-based care in aphasia rehabilitation. Theoretically informed strategies such as establishing organizational infrastructure for practice change, developing clinically relevant evidence through research-practice partnerships, and implementing algorithms to support clinical decision-making can address barriers and leverage facilitators.