Assessment practices of speech-language pathologists for cognitive communication disorders following traumatic brain injury in adults: An international survey

Frith, Matthew H. J.; Togher, Leanne; Ferguson, Alison; Levick, Wayne; Docking, Kimberley

doi:10.3109/02699052.2014.947619

Cited by 64 publications

(53 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Frith et al . (2014) report on 265 speech pathologists’ practices in five countries in the management of cognitive communication deficits in people with traumatic brain injury. Here they found that 44.3% of clinicians reported routinely assessing discourse; more experienced clinicians (> 10 years’ experience) were more likely to assess discourse; and that discourse and/or pragmatic skills assessment was significantly more likely to be conducted in the community setting, compared with other settings (Frith et al .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Here they found that 44.3% of clinicians reported routinely assessing discourse; more experienced clinicians (> 10 years’ experience) were more likely to assess discourse; and that discourse and/or pragmatic skills assessment was significantly more likely to be conducted in the community setting, compared with other settings (Frith et al . 2014). Interestingly, though, clinicians appeared to be primarily assessing discourse as pragmatic skills using formal assessments of perceived communicative ability and social perception, rather than undertaking linguistic discourse analysis, for example, word counts.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…2017; Frith et al . 2014), and where relevant these variables should be considered in future research.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…2017; Frith et al . 2014), we hypothesized that clinicians who were more experienced (> 10 years) and clinicians in community settings would conduct discourse analysis more frequently than those who are less experienced or working in other settings. Similarly, because of the known barriers (Bryant et al .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

UK speech and language therapists’ views and reported practices of discourse analysis in aphasia rehabilitation

Cruice

Botting

Marshall

et al. 2020

Intl J Lang & Comm Disor

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Discourse assessment and treatment in aphasia rehabilitation is a priority focus for a range of stakeholder groups. However, a significant majority of speech and language therapists (SLTs) infrequently conduct discourse analysis, and do not feel competent in doing so. Known barriers identified in other countries, specifically a lack of time, training, expertise and resources, affect use of discourse analysis in clinical practice. Aims: To investigate UK SLTs' reported practices and views of discourse analysis, barriers and facilitators, and clinical feasibility in aphasia rehabilitation. Methods & Procedures:An online survey of 52 questions adapted from existing research and incorporating behaviour change literature was created for the study and piloted. UK SLTs working in aphasia rehabilitation for at least 6 months were invited to participate. Potential participants were contacted through national and local clinical excellence networks, a National Health Service (NHS) bespoke e-mail list, and national magazine advertisement, and the study was also advertised on social media (Twitter). Therapists read an online participant information sheet and submitted individual electronic consent online; then progressed to the Qualtrics survey. Descriptive, correlational and inferential statistical analyses were conducted, and content analysis was carried out on the questions requiring text. Outcomes & Results: A total of 211 valid responses were received from primarily female SLTs, aged 20-40 years, working full-time in the NHS in England, in community, inpatient and acute/subacute multidisciplinary settings. A total of 30% SLTs collected discourse analysis often, were mostly very experienced, and working part-time in community settings. Years of experience was predictive of use. Discourse was most often collected using standardized picture descriptions and recounts during initial assessment. Samples were infrequently recorded, and typically transcribed in real-time. Most SLTs (53-95%) reported making clinical judgements or manually counted words, sentences, communication of ideas and errors, and were confident in doing so. Barriers included time constraints; lack of expertise, confidence, training, resources and equipment; and patient severity. Discourse 'super-users' were distinguished by significantly higher professional motivation for discourse and workplace opportunity than other SLTs, and 'non-users' were distinguished by significantly less knowledge and skills in discourse analysis than other SLTs. SLTs reported a desire and need for training, new/assistive tools and time to do more discourse analysis in practice.Conclusions & Implications: Clinicians were highly engaged and relatively active in at least some aspects of discourse analysis practice. Interventions that target individual clinicians as well as organizations and systems are needed to improve the uptake of discourse analysis in practice. 418Madeline Cruice et al. What this paper addsWhat is already known on the subject? r Discourse in aphasia r...

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…2017; Frith et al . 2014), and where relevant these variables should be considered in future research.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

UK speech and language therapists’ views and reported practices of discourse analysis in aphasia rehabilitation

Cruice

Botting

Marshall

et al. 2020

Intl J Lang & Comm Disor

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…) can be difficult to diagnose (Frith et al . ) and typically persist for many years post‐injury (Bond and Godfrey ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Feasibility and initial efficacy of project‐based treatment for people with ABI

Behn

Marshall

Togher

et al. 2019

Intl J Lang & Comm Disor

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Communication impairments are common and pervasive for people a long time following acquired brain injury (ABI). These impairments have a significant impact on a person's quality of life (QOL) post‐injury. Project‐based treatment is a treatment approach that could have an impact on communication skills and QOL for people with ABI a long‐term post‐injury. This treatment is embedded in a context of meaningful activities chosen by people with ABI, whereby, as a group, they work collaboratively to achieve a tangible end product. Aims To evaluate the feasibility and initial efficacy of project‐based treatment on improving the communication skills and QOL for people with ABI. Methods & Procedures An exploratory controlled trial with alternate allocation of groups, and follow‐up at 6–8 weeks, was completed. Twenty‐one people with chronic ABI were recruited in groups of two to three from community settings, allocated to either a TREATMENT (n = 11) or WAITLIST group (n = 10). Participants attended a 20‐h group‐based treatment over 6 weeks where they worked towards achieving a project that helped others. To determine feasibility, four criteria were used: demand, implementation, practicality and acceptability. A range of communication and QOL outcomes was used to determine a fifth feasibility criterion, initial efficacy. Some of these criteria were additionally used to evaluate the feasibility of the outcomes. Outcomes & Results All participants received the treatment as allocated with high attendance and no dropouts. The treatment was feasible to deliver as intended and was highly acceptable to participants. Medium and large effect sizes were found from pre‐ to post‐treatment, and from pre‐treatment to follow‐up for measures of conversation, perceived communicative ability and QOL. Conclusions & Implications Project‐based treatment is feasible with indications of initial efficacy for both communication skills and QOL. The treatment provides a promising new approach for improving communication skills and QOL in people with chronic acquired brain injuries in the community setting.

show abstract