UK government policy is encouraging healthcare staff to blur traditional roles, in the drive to increase joint working between practitioners. However there is currently a lack of clarity regarding the impact that changes to traditional working practice might have on staff delivering the services, or on patient care. In this article, we report findings from three qualitative case studies examining joint working practice in stroke care, in which the influence of professional differences was a subsidiary theme. We draw on findings from individual semi-structured interviews, as well as fieldwork observations, to describe the influence of professional knowledge and skills, role and identity, and power and status considerations in interprofessional working. The insights that were gained contribute to the understanding of how professional differences impact on healthcare staff joint working, and suggest that the elements identified need to be fully considered in drives towards changed working practice.

The VASES is a short and easy to administer measure of self-esteem that possesses good psychometric properties.

BackgroundThe growing range of available treatment options for people who stutter presents a challenge for clinicians, service managers and commissioners, who need to have access to the best available treatment evidence to guide them in providing the most appropriate interventions. While a number of reviews of interventions for specific populations or a specific type of intervention have been carried out, a broad‐based systematic review across all forms of intervention for adults and children was needed to provide evidence to underpin future guidelines, inform the implementation of effective treatments and identify future research priorities.AimsTo identify and synthesize the published research evidence on the clinical effectiveness of the broad range of non‐pharmacological interventions for the management of developmental stuttering.Methods & ProceduresA systematic review of the literature reporting interventions for developmental stuttering was carried out between August 2013 and April 2014. Searches were not limited by language or location, but were restricted by date to studies published from 1990 onwards. Methods for the identification of relevant studies included electronic database searching, reference list checking, citation searching and hand searching of key journals. Appraisal of study quality was performed using a tool based on established criteria for considering risk of bias. Due to heterogeneity in intervention content and outcomes, a narrative synthesis was completed.Main ContributionThe review included all available types of intervention and found that most may be of benefit to at least some people who stutter. There was evidence, however, of considerable individual variation in response to these interventions. The review indicated that effects could be maintained following all types of interventions (although this was weakest with regard to feedback and technology interventions).ConclusionsThis review highlights a need for greater consensus with regard to the key outcomes used to evaluate stuttering interventions, and also a need for enhanced understanding of the process whereby interventions effect change. Further analysis of the variation in effectiveness for different individuals or groups is needed in order to identify who may benefit most from which intervention.

No abstract

BackgroundDespite many years of research, there is no certainty regarding the cause of stuttering. Although numerous interventions have been developed, a broad-based systematic review across all forms of intervention for adults and children was needed including views and perceptions of people who stutter.ObjectiveThe aims of the study were to report the clinical effectiveness of interventions for people who stutter (or clutter), to examine evidence regarding the views of people who stutter and the views of professionals regarding interventions.Data sourcesA systematic review of quantitative and qualitative literature was carried out between August 2013 and April 2014. The following electronic databases were searched: (1) MEDLINE, (2) EMBASE, (3) The Cochrane Library (including The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, Health Technology Assessment Database and NHS Economic Evaluations Database), (4) PsycINFO, (5) Science Citation Index, (6) Social Science Citation Index, (7) Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, (8) ASSIA, (9) Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts, (10) Sociological Abstracts and (11) the EPPI Centre. Reference lists of included papers and other reviews were screened and also key journals in the subject area were hand-searched.Review methodsThe searches aimed to identify (1) evidence of clinical effectiveness in populations of pre-school children, school-aged children, adolescents and adults, and (2) data relating to perceptions of barriers and facilitators to intervention clinical effectiveness among staff and people who stutter. A metasynthesis of the two linked elements via development of a conceptual model was also carried out to provide further interpretation of the review findings.ResultsA systematic search of the literature identified a large number of potentially relevant studies. Of these, 111 studies examining the clinical effectiveness of interventions, 25 qualitative papers and one mixed-methods paper met the criteria for inclusion in this review. Review of the effectiveness literature indicated evidence of positive outcomes across all types of interventions. Virtually all evidence we identified reported at least some positive effect for some participants. However, there was evidence of considerable individual variation in outcome for study participants. The qualitative literature highlighted the need for programmes to be tailored to individual need with variation at the levels of the intervention, the individual and interpersonal/social elements. Metasynthesis of the data highlighted the complexity of elements that need to be considered in evaluation of long-term impacts following stuttering interventions.LimitationsAround two-thirds of the studies were considered to be at higher risk of bias. The heterogeneous nature and variability in outcomes meant that we were unable to complete a meta-analysis.ConclusionsAlthough much of the evidence we identified was from studies at risk of bias, it is suggested that most available interventions for stuttering may be of benefit to at least some people who stutter. There is a requirement for greater clarity regarding what the core outcomes following stuttering intervention should be and also enhanced understanding of the process whereby interventions effect change. Further analysis of those for whom interventions have not produced a significant benefit may provide additional insights into the complex intervention–outcomes pathway.Study registrationThis study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013004861.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.