失语症标准化修复疗法的使用和修改:临床医生的观点。

IF 2.3 3区 医学 Q1 AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY
Reva M Zimmerman, Jessica Obermeyer, Julie Schlesinger, JoAnn P Silkes
{"title":"失语症标准化修复疗法的使用和修改:临床医生的观点。","authors":"Reva M Zimmerman, Jessica Obermeyer, Julie Schlesinger, JoAnn P Silkes","doi":"10.1044/2024_AJSLP-23-00349","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Aphasia treatment should be individualized, so clinicians are likely modifying established treatment paradigms to fit client needs. Little extant research describes which treatment protocols clinicians modify, how and why they modify their treatments, and what sources they use to guide their modifications. The purpose of this study was to gain insights into these issues.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>A Qualtrics survey was distributed through speech-language pathology-related professional and social media networks from January through June 2023. Forty-seven speech-language pathologists provided basic information on assessment and treatment approaches that they use, and 32 respondents provided detailed responses regarding their current treatment practices.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The two restitutive aphasia treatments clinicians reported using most often were Semantic Feature Analysis and Verb Network Strengthening Treatment. The reasons for using these two treatments were that they are easy to administer, patients enjoy them, and they are perceived to be effective. Most clinicians reported that they often modify aphasia treatment protocols for a variety of reasons. These included matching patients' linguistic profiles by changing stimuli or the presentation modality as well as meeting time constraints and productivity standards. Respondents reported that they mostly rely on their personal experience, suggestions from colleagues, and linguistic theory to guide their modifications.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Clinicians often modify standardized treatments to balance their patients' needs and the demands of their settings and typically rely on personal experience to do so. In the future, more clinician-researcher partnerships and investigations of active treatment ingredients are needed to support clinicians in making efficient and effective treatment modifications.</p><p><strong>Supplemental material: </strong>https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.27703662.</p>","PeriodicalId":49240,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology","volume":" ","pages":"1-16"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Using and Modifying Standardized Restorative Treatments in Aphasia: Clinician Perspectives.\",\"authors\":\"Reva M Zimmerman, Jessica Obermeyer, Julie Schlesinger, JoAnn P Silkes\",\"doi\":\"10.1044/2024_AJSLP-23-00349\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Aphasia treatment should be individualized, so clinicians are likely modifying established treatment paradigms to fit client needs. Little extant research describes which treatment protocols clinicians modify, how and why they modify their treatments, and what sources they use to guide their modifications. The purpose of this study was to gain insights into these issues.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>A Qualtrics survey was distributed through speech-language pathology-related professional and social media networks from January through June 2023. Forty-seven speech-language pathologists provided basic information on assessment and treatment approaches that they use, and 32 respondents provided detailed responses regarding their current treatment practices.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The two restitutive aphasia treatments clinicians reported using most often were Semantic Feature Analysis and Verb Network Strengthening Treatment. The reasons for using these two treatments were that they are easy to administer, patients enjoy them, and they are perceived to be effective. Most clinicians reported that they often modify aphasia treatment protocols for a variety of reasons. These included matching patients' linguistic profiles by changing stimuli or the presentation modality as well as meeting time constraints and productivity standards. Respondents reported that they mostly rely on their personal experience, suggestions from colleagues, and linguistic theory to guide their modifications.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Clinicians often modify standardized treatments to balance their patients' needs and the demands of their settings and typically rely on personal experience to do so. In the future, more clinician-researcher partnerships and investigations of active treatment ingredients are needed to support clinicians in making efficient and effective treatment modifications.</p><p><strong>Supplemental material: </strong>https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.27703662.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49240,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-16\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-21\",\"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-23-00349\",\"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}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1044/2024_AJSLP-23-00349","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

摘要

目的:失语症的治疗应该是个性化的,因此临床医生很可能会修改既有的治疗范例,以适应客户的需求。现有研究很少描述临床医生修改了哪些治疗方案,他们是如何修改治疗方案的,为什么要修改治疗方案,以及他们使用哪些资料来指导他们的修改。本研究旨在深入了解这些问题:从 2023 年 1 月到 6 月,我们通过语言病理学相关的专业和社交媒体网络发放了一份 Qualtrics 调查问卷。47 位语言病理学家提供了他们所使用的评估和治疗方法的基本信息,32 位受访者详细回答了他们目前的治疗方法:结果:临床医生最常使用的两种恢复性失语症治疗方法是语义特征分析和动词网络强化治疗。使用这两种治疗方法的原因是,它们易于操作,患者喜欢,而且它们被认为是有效的。大多数临床医生表示,他们经常出于各种原因修改失语症治疗方案。这些原因包括通过改变刺激物或演示方式来匹配患者的语言特征,以及满足时间限制和工作效率标准。受访者表示,他们主要依靠个人经验、同事建议和语言学理论来指导他们的修改:临床医生经常会对标准化治疗方法进行修改,以平衡患者的需求和工作环境的要求,他们通常会依靠个人经验来进行修改。未来,需要更多临床医生与研究人员的合作以及对有效治疗成分的调查,以支持临床医生做出高效和有效的治疗修改。补充材料:https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.27703662。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Using and Modifying Standardized Restorative Treatments in Aphasia: Clinician Perspectives.

Purpose: Aphasia treatment should be individualized, so clinicians are likely modifying established treatment paradigms to fit client needs. Little extant research describes which treatment protocols clinicians modify, how and why they modify their treatments, and what sources they use to guide their modifications. The purpose of this study was to gain insights into these issues.

Method: A Qualtrics survey was distributed through speech-language pathology-related professional and social media networks from January through June 2023. Forty-seven speech-language pathologists provided basic information on assessment and treatment approaches that they use, and 32 respondents provided detailed responses regarding their current treatment practices.

Results: The two restitutive aphasia treatments clinicians reported using most often were Semantic Feature Analysis and Verb Network Strengthening Treatment. The reasons for using these two treatments were that they are easy to administer, patients enjoy them, and they are perceived to be effective. Most clinicians reported that they often modify aphasia treatment protocols for a variety of reasons. These included matching patients' linguistic profiles by changing stimuli or the presentation modality as well as meeting time constraints and productivity standards. Respondents reported that they mostly rely on their personal experience, suggestions from colleagues, and linguistic theory to guide their modifications.

Conclusions: Clinicians often modify standardized treatments to balance their patients' needs and the demands of their settings and typically rely on personal experience to do so. In the future, more clinician-researcher partnerships and investigations of active treatment ingredients are needed to support clinicians in making efficient and effective treatment modifications.

Supplemental material: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.27703662.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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