Working towards consensus on the assessment of mood after severe acquired brain injury: Focus groups with UK-based professionals.

IF 2.6 3区 医学 Q1 REHABILITATION
Clinical Rehabilitation Pub Date : 2024-12-01 Epub Date: 2024-10-09 DOI:10.1177/02692155241287770
Alexandra E Rose, Breda Cullen, Sarah Crawford, Jonathan J Evans
{"title":"Working towards consensus on the assessment of mood after severe acquired brain injury: Focus groups with UK-based professionals.","authors":"Alexandra E Rose, Breda Cullen, Sarah Crawford, Jonathan J Evans","doi":"10.1177/02692155241287770","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The assessment of mood after brain injury is more challenging when people have ongoing severe cognitive and receptive communication impairments. There is no gold standard on how these assessments should be undertaken. This study aimed to reach a consensus on this among specialists working with this population.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Focus groups were completed using a structured nominal group technique. Groups were compared for overlapping themes and agreed processes.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>Five focus groups with a total of 14 participants who work with the population of interest were completed. Participants included 12 clinical psychologists, one psychiatrist and one consultant in rehabilitation medicine.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Each of the five groups reached a consensus on a process for assessing mood in this population. Results overlapped and were combined into a proposed circular and iterative model of assessment that includes: (pre) information gathering, (peri) assessment processes, and (post) treatment; with formulation being seen as a vital part of the process. Standardised measures were not recommended for use with this population. Beyond the consensus processes, three implicit themes were identified: (1) depression is different after severe brain injury, (2) overlapping tasks and roles, and (3) looking at the bigger picture.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>A good level of consensus was achieved across the five groups on processes to follow when assessing mood when people have ongoing cognitive and receptive communication impairments after severe brain injury. We recommend that this formulation-based model be followed when assessing people in this clinical population.</p>","PeriodicalId":10441,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Rehabilitation","volume":" ","pages":"1703-1710"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11555910/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Rehabilitation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/02692155241287770","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/10/9 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: The assessment of mood after brain injury is more challenging when people have ongoing severe cognitive and receptive communication impairments. There is no gold standard on how these assessments should be undertaken. This study aimed to reach a consensus on this among specialists working with this population.

Design: Focus groups were completed using a structured nominal group technique. Groups were compared for overlapping themes and agreed processes.

Participants: Five focus groups with a total of 14 participants who work with the population of interest were completed. Participants included 12 clinical psychologists, one psychiatrist and one consultant in rehabilitation medicine.

Results: Each of the five groups reached a consensus on a process for assessing mood in this population. Results overlapped and were combined into a proposed circular and iterative model of assessment that includes: (pre) information gathering, (peri) assessment processes, and (post) treatment; with formulation being seen as a vital part of the process. Standardised measures were not recommended for use with this population. Beyond the consensus processes, three implicit themes were identified: (1) depression is different after severe brain injury, (2) overlapping tasks and roles, and (3) looking at the bigger picture.

Conclusions: A good level of consensus was achieved across the five groups on processes to follow when assessing mood when people have ongoing cognitive and receptive communication impairments after severe brain injury. We recommend that this formulation-based model be followed when assessing people in this clinical population.

努力就严重后天性脑损伤后的情绪评估达成共识:与英国专业人士进行焦点小组讨论。
目的:如果患者在认知和接受性交流方面持续存在严重障碍,那么脑损伤后的情绪评估就更具挑战性。关于如何进行这些评估,目前尚无金标准。本研究旨在让从事脑损伤人群相关工作的专家对此达成共识:设计:采用结构化名义小组技术完成焦点小组。参与者:五个焦点小组,共 14 人:共完成了 5 个焦点小组的讨论,共有 14 名从事相关人群工作的参与者参加。参与者包括 12 名临床心理学家、1 名精神科医生和 1 名康复医学顾问:结果:五个小组分别就该人群的情绪评估流程达成了共识。结果:五个小组分别就此类人群的情绪评估流程达成了共识,结果相互重叠,并合并成一个循环迭代的评估模型,其中包括(该模式包括:(前期)信息收集、(中期)评估过程和(后期)治疗;其中配方被视为该过程的重要组成部分。不建议在这一人群中使用标准化的测量方法。在达成共识的过程之外,还发现了三个隐含的主题:(1) 严重脑损伤后的抑郁症有所不同,(2) 任务和角色重叠,以及 (3) 放眼全局:五个小组在评估严重脑损伤后认知和接受性交流障碍者的情绪时应遵循的流程方面达成了很好的共识。我们建议,在对这一临床人群进行评估时,应遵循这一基于配方的模式。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Clinical Rehabilitation
Clinical Rehabilitation 医学-康复医学
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
6.70%
发文量
117
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Clinical Rehabilitation covering the whole field of disability and rehabilitation, this peer-reviewed journal publishes research and discussion articles and acts as a forum for the international dissemination and exchange of information amongst the large number of professionals involved in rehabilitation. This journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信