Approaches to Training Speech-Language Pathologists to Work With People With Aphasia: A Systematic Review.

IF 2.3 3区 医学 Q1 AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY
Imran Musaji, Erin L O'Bryan, Aaron Bowen
{"title":"Approaches to Training Speech-Language Pathologists to Work With People With Aphasia: A Systematic Review.","authors":"Imran Musaji, Erin L O'Bryan, Aaron Bowen","doi":"10.1044/2024_AJSLP-24-00350","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The aim of this systematic review was to analyze the published research on training approaches for preparing current and future speech-language pathologists (SLPs) to work effectively with people with aphasia (PWA). The review addresses key questions regarding the described training approaches, their key features, research quality, and efficacy.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>The review was conducted in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and registered with International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42024453742). The literature search spanned nine databases. Eligibility criteria included peer-reviewed publications in English that reported on training programs involving current or future SLPs working with PWA. Studies were assessed for research quality using the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association's (ASHA's) levels of evidence framework. Narrative synthesis was used to identify key features in the training programs.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 920 citations were identified, with 50 studies meeting the inclusion criteria for analysis. Included studies represented a broad range of training approaches, research designs, and research quality. The 50 studies fell into ASHA levels of evidence Ib, IIa, IIb, III, and IV. Statistical meta-analysis was not possible because of variability in research design and outcome measures, but the studies revealed statistically significant findings relevant to the question of what makes training effective for preparing clinicians to work with people with aphasia.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The current literature related to training of clinicians to work with PWA is heterogeneous in approach, outcome metrics, and methodological quality. There is evidence supporting several recommendations for training clinicians including integrating direct interactions with PWA during training, combining didactic and experiential learning, and incorporating reflective practices. Overall, the review highlights the need for well-described evidence-based training standards for speech-language pathology students working with PWA. Future research should aim to develop and validate comprehensive training guidelines to improve care quality for individuals with aphasia.</p>","PeriodicalId":49240,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology","volume":" ","pages":"1-39"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1044/2024_AJSLP-24-00350","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this systematic review was to analyze the published research on training approaches for preparing current and future speech-language pathologists (SLPs) to work effectively with people with aphasia (PWA). The review addresses key questions regarding the described training approaches, their key features, research quality, and efficacy.

Method: The review was conducted in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and registered with International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42024453742). The literature search spanned nine databases. Eligibility criteria included peer-reviewed publications in English that reported on training programs involving current or future SLPs working with PWA. Studies were assessed for research quality using the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association's (ASHA's) levels of evidence framework. Narrative synthesis was used to identify key features in the training programs.

Results: A total of 920 citations were identified, with 50 studies meeting the inclusion criteria for analysis. Included studies represented a broad range of training approaches, research designs, and research quality. The 50 studies fell into ASHA levels of evidence Ib, IIa, IIb, III, and IV. Statistical meta-analysis was not possible because of variability in research design and outcome measures, but the studies revealed statistically significant findings relevant to the question of what makes training effective for preparing clinicians to work with people with aphasia.

Conclusions: The current literature related to training of clinicians to work with PWA is heterogeneous in approach, outcome metrics, and methodological quality. There is evidence supporting several recommendations for training clinicians including integrating direct interactions with PWA during training, combining didactic and experiential learning, and incorporating reflective practices. Overall, the review highlights the need for well-described evidence-based training standards for speech-language pathology students working with PWA. Future research should aim to develop and validate comprehensive training guidelines to improve care quality for individuals with aphasia.

训练语言病理学家与失语症患者合作的方法:系统回顾。
目的:本系统综述的目的是分析已发表的关于培养当前和未来语言病理学家(slp)有效治疗失语症(PWA)的训练方法的研究。这篇综述讨论了关于所描述的训练方法、它们的主要特征、研究质量和有效性的关键问题。方法:本综述按照系统评价和荟萃分析指南的首选报告项目进行,并在国际前瞻性系统评价注册(CRD42024453742)注册。文献检索跨越了9个数据库。资格标准包括同行评议的英文出版物,报告涉及当前或未来与PWA合作的slp的培训计划。研究使用美国语言听力协会(ASHA)的证据框架水平来评估研究质量。叙述性综合被用于识别培训计划中的关键特征。结果:共检索到920篇引文,其中50篇符合纳入标准。纳入的研究代表了广泛的培训方法、研究设计和研究质量。这50项研究分为证据Ib、IIa、IIb、III和IV的ASHA水平。由于研究设计和结果测量的可变性,无法进行统计荟萃分析,但这些研究揭示了统计学上显著的发现,这些发现与如何使培训有效地帮助临床医生治疗失语症患者的问题有关。结论:目前有关临床医生培训PWA的文献在方法、结果指标和方法学质量方面存在差异。有证据支持培训临床医生的几项建议,包括在培训期间整合与PWA的直接互动,将教学和体验式学习相结合,并纳入反思实践。总的来说,这篇综述强调了为使用PWA的语言病理学学生制定良好的基于证据的培训标准的必要性。未来的研究应旨在制定和验证全面的培训指南,以提高失语症患者的护理质量。
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
American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology
American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY-REHABILITATION
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
11.50%
发文量
353
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Mission: AJSLP publishes peer-reviewed research and other scholarly articles on all aspects of clinical practice in speech-language pathology. The journal is an international outlet for clinical research pertaining to screening, detection, diagnosis, management, and outcomes of communication and swallowing disorders across the lifespan as well as the etiologies and characteristics of these disorders. Because of its clinical orientation, the journal disseminates research findings applicable to diverse aspects of clinical practice in speech-language pathology. AJSLP seeks to advance evidence-based practice by disseminating the results of new studies as well as providing a forum for critical reviews and meta-analyses of previously published work. Scope: The broad field of speech-language pathology, including aphasia; apraxia of speech and childhood apraxia of speech; aural rehabilitation; augmentative and alternative communication; cognitive impairment; craniofacial disorders; dysarthria; fluency disorders; language disorders in children; speech sound disorders; swallowing, dysphagia, and feeding disorders; and voice disorders.
×
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