Communication between rehabilitation staff and people with traumatic brain injury: A systematic review.

IF 1.7 3区 心理学 Q4 NEUROSCIENCES
Neuropsychological Rehabilitation Pub Date : 2024-09-01 Epub Date: 2023-11-09 DOI:10.1080/09602011.2023.2274625
Iben Christensen, Emma Power, Leanne Togher, Sophie Brassel, Elise Elbourn, Naomi Folder, Lise Randrup Jensen
{"title":"Communication between rehabilitation staff and people with traumatic brain injury: A systematic review.","authors":"Iben Christensen, Emma Power, Leanne Togher, Sophie Brassel, Elise Elbourn, Naomi Folder, Lise Randrup Jensen","doi":"10.1080/09602011.2023.2274625","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This systematic review aimed to synthesize barriers and facilitators in communicative interactions between staff and people with traumatic brain injury (TBI) in the rehabilitation context. Searches captured published evidence up to November 2022 in MEDLINE, Embase, SCOPUS, Web of Science, CINAHL, AMED, and PsycINFO. Eligible studies reported on the communicative interaction between rehabilitation staff and adults with TBI. In total, 31 studies were included in the review; including quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods designs. Quality assessment was carried out using standard checklists. Quantitative studies and quantitative components of mixed-method studies were synthesized descriptively according to reported communication barriers and facilitators. Qualitative studies and qualitative components of mixed-method studies were analysed through an inductive thematic meta-synthesis; generating six main themes with four subthemes. Themes were categorized as barriers or facilitators to communicative interaction. Findings demonstrated that cognitive-communication disorders of people with TBI challenge the communicative interaction between rehabilitation staff and people with TBI. However, the extent to which these disorders create a communicative barrier is closely related to staff's communicative approach. While staff holding a collaborative and acknowledging approach and using supportive strategies may facilitate successful communicative interactions, staff using the opposite approach may exacerbate communication barriers.</p>","PeriodicalId":54729,"journal":{"name":"Neuropsychological Rehabilitation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neuropsychological Rehabilitation","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09602011.2023.2274625","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/11/9 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This systematic review aimed to synthesize barriers and facilitators in communicative interactions between staff and people with traumatic brain injury (TBI) in the rehabilitation context. Searches captured published evidence up to November 2022 in MEDLINE, Embase, SCOPUS, Web of Science, CINAHL, AMED, and PsycINFO. Eligible studies reported on the communicative interaction between rehabilitation staff and adults with TBI. In total, 31 studies were included in the review; including quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods designs. Quality assessment was carried out using standard checklists. Quantitative studies and quantitative components of mixed-method studies were synthesized descriptively according to reported communication barriers and facilitators. Qualitative studies and qualitative components of mixed-method studies were analysed through an inductive thematic meta-synthesis; generating six main themes with four subthemes. Themes were categorized as barriers or facilitators to communicative interaction. Findings demonstrated that cognitive-communication disorders of people with TBI challenge the communicative interaction between rehabilitation staff and people with TBI. However, the extent to which these disorders create a communicative barrier is closely related to staff's communicative approach. While staff holding a collaborative and acknowledging approach and using supportive strategies may facilitate successful communicative interactions, staff using the opposite approach may exacerbate communication barriers.

康复工作人员与创伤性脑损伤患者之间的沟通:一项系统综述。
这篇系统综述旨在综合康复背景下工作人员和创伤性脑损伤患者之间沟通互动的障碍和促进者。截至2022年11月,搜索在MEDLINE、Embase、SCOPUS、Web of Science、CINAHL、AMED和PsycINFO上捕获了已发表的证据。符合条件的研究报告了康复工作人员和患有创伤性脑损伤的成年人之间的交流互动。共有31项研究被纳入审查;包括定量、定性和混合方法设计。使用标准检查表进行质量评估。根据报告的沟通障碍和促进者,描述性地综合了定量研究和混合方法研究的定量组成部分。定性研究和混合方法研究的定性组成部分通过归纳主题元综合进行分析;生成六个主题和四个子主题。主题被归类为沟通互动的障碍或促进者。研究结果表明,脑外伤患者的认知沟通障碍挑战了康复人员与脑外伤患者之间的沟通互动。然而,这些障碍在多大程度上造成了沟通障碍,这与员工的沟通方式密切相关。虽然工作人员采取合作和承认的方法并使用支持性策略可能有助于成功的沟通互动,但使用相反方法的工作人员可能会加剧沟通障碍。
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
Neuropsychological Rehabilitation
Neuropsychological Rehabilitation 医学-神经科学
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
7.40%
发文量
78
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Neuropsychological Rehabilitation publishes human experimental and clinical research related to rehabilitation, recovery of function, and brain plasticity. The journal is aimed at clinicians who wish to inform their practice in the light of the latest scientific research; at researchers in neurorehabilitation; and finally at researchers in cognitive neuroscience and related fields interested in the mechanisms of recovery and rehabilitation. Papers on neuropsychological assessment will be considered, and special topic reviews (2500-5000 words) addressing specific key questions in rehabilitation, recovery and brain plasticity will also be welcomed. The latter will enter a fast-track refereeing process.
×
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