Search

Objective: We aimed to explore the experiences and perspectives of pregnant women, antenatal healthcare professionals, and system leaders to understand the impact of the implementation of remote provision of antenatal care during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond. Methods: We conducted a qualitative study involving semi-structured interviews with 93 participants, including 45 individuals who had been pregnant during the study period, 34 health care professionals, and 14 managers and system-level stakeholders. Analysis was based on the constant comparative method and used the theoretical framework of candidacy. Results: We found that remote antenatal care had far-reaching effects on access when understood through the lens of candidacy. It altered women's own identification of themselves and their babies as eligible for antenatal care. Navigating services became more challenging, often requiring considerable digital literacy and sociocultural capital. Services became less permeable, meaning that they were more difficult to use and demanding of the personal and social resources of users. Remote consultations were seen as more transactional in character and were limited by lack of face-to-face contact and safe spaces, making it more difficult for women to make their needs – both clinical and social – known, and for professionals to assess them. Operational and institutional challenges, including problems in sharing of antenatal records, were consequential. There were suggestions that a shift to remote provision of antenatal care might increase risks of inequities in access to care in relation to every feature of candidacy we characterised. Conclusion: It is important to recognise the implications for access to antenatal care of a shift to remote delivery. It is not a simple swap: it restructures many aspects of candidacy for care in ways that pose risks of amplifying existing intersectional inequalities that lead to poorer outcomes. Addressing these challenges through policy and practice action is needed to tackle these risks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: It appears that students with intellectual disability (ID) are more frequently absent from school compared with students without ID. The objective of the current study was to estimate the frequency of absence among students with ID and the reasons for absence. Potential reasons included the attendance problems referred to as school refusal, where absence is related to emotional distress; truancy, where absence is concealed from parents; school exclusion, where absence is instigated by the school; and school withdrawal, where absence is initiated by parents. Methods: Study participants were 629 parents (84.6% mothers) of Australian school students (Mage = 11.18 years; 1.8% Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander) with an ID. Participants completed a questionnaire battery that included the School Non‐Attendance ChecKlist via which parents indicated the reason their child was absent for each day or half‐day absence their child had over the past 20 school days. The absence data presented to parents had been retrieved from school records. Results: Across all students, absence occurred on 7.9% of the past 20 school days. In terms of school attendance problems as defined in existing literature, school withdrawal accounted for 11.1% of absences and school refusal for 5.3% of absences. Students were also absent for other reasons, most commonly illness (32.0%) and appointments (24.2%). Of students with more than one absence (n = 217; 34.5%), about half were absent for more than one reason. Students attending mainstream schools had lower attendance than those attending special schools. Conclusions: Students with ID were absent for a range of reasons and often for multiple reasons. There were elevated rates of school withdrawal and school refusal. Understanding the reasons for absenteeism can inform targeted prevention and intervention supports. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Self-management can lead to increased self-efficacy and improved quality of life for individuals with chronic conditions; however, there is little research exploring how self-management approaches can be used for chronic communication disorders, such as aphasia. Modifications to self-management approaches would be required to accommodate for aphasia; therefore, the input of people with aphasia (PwA) should be sought. The aims of the present study were: (1) To investigate and document the experiences and perspectives of PwA regarding self-management; (2) To explore how technology can be used to support aphasia self-management. In-depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 26 PwA living in Australia. Qualitative content analysis was used to analyse interview data. Analysis resulted in six themes: (1) In self-management, PwA take control of life with aphasia and assume responsibility for engaging in opportunities to improve overall communication; (2) Community aphasia groups are important enablers of self-management because they facilitate peer support; (3) Communication partners (CPs) provide multifaceted support in aphasia self-management; (4) SLPs provide integrated support and coordination in aphasia self-management; (5) Technology supports PwA to self-manage speech therapy and communication in daily life; (6) Psychological and physical health issues and societal factors may impact aphasia self-management abilities. From the perspective of PwA, aphasia self-management involves enhancing skills enabling communication and life participation. PwA are central to aphasia self-management, with support provided by CPs, peers, and SLPs. Technology has a range of applications in aphasia self-management. PwA identified potential personal and contextual barriers that may impact self-management. For people with aphasia, engaging in conversation and social interaction are primary means of managing/improving communicative life participation; therefore, this should be a key focus of aphasia self-management programs. Aphasia self-management approaches should maximise the use of available support and provide tailored information, education, and training in the area of self-management to key stakeholders (people with aphasia, communication partners, and speech-language pathologists). People with aphasia should be supported to use technology for aphasia self-management, encompassing communication specific and daily life use. People with aphasia should be heavily involved in the development of structured aphasia self-management approaches. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]