脑损伤后严重认知和沟通障碍患者的情绪评估:英国专业人士的一项调查。

IF 1.5 4区 医学 Q4 NEUROSCIENCES
Alexandra E Rose, Breda Cullen, Sarah Crawford, Jonathan J Evans
{"title":"脑损伤后严重认知和沟通障碍患者的情绪评估:英国专业人士的一项调查。","authors":"Alexandra E Rose, Breda Cullen, Sarah Crawford, Jonathan J Evans","doi":"10.1080/02699052.2025.2493354","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>Assessing mood via standardized measures and clinical interviews is challenging in people with ongoing cognitive and receptive communication impairments after a severe brain injury. This study examined how healthcare professionals in the United Kingdom assess this population via two online surveys, one of clinical psychologists (CPs) and one of medical professionals (MPs).</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Recruitment was completed via social media and invitational e-mails to identified services, professional bodies and special interest groups. Survey responses were via multiple choice and free text. Responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics and content analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>55 CPs and 29 MPs responded. All respondents reported asking others about the patient's mood, and the majority of both groups interview and observe the patient. 86% of CPs and 45% of MPs use standardized measures. Most of the CPs made adaptations to the measures, as did more than a third of MPs. The majority of both groups made adaptations to the scores.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Most clinicians assessing mood in this population ask others about the person. Mood measures are used, but the administration and score interpretation are frequently adapted, bringing the validity of the use of measures in this population into question. Although there was overlap regarding methods used by surveyed clinicians, there was no clear consensus on how mood should be assessed in this population.</p>","PeriodicalId":9082,"journal":{"name":"Brain injury","volume":" ","pages":"1-16"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The assessment of mood in people with severe cognitive and communication impairments following brain injury: a survey of UK-based professionals.\",\"authors\":\"Alexandra E Rose, Breda Cullen, Sarah Crawford, Jonathan J Evans\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/02699052.2025.2493354\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>Assessing mood via standardized measures and clinical interviews is challenging in people with ongoing cognitive and receptive communication impairments after a severe brain injury. This study examined how healthcare professionals in the United Kingdom assess this population via two online surveys, one of clinical psychologists (CPs) and one of medical professionals (MPs).</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Recruitment was completed via social media and invitational e-mails to identified services, professional bodies and special interest groups. Survey responses were via multiple choice and free text. Responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics and content analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>55 CPs and 29 MPs responded. All respondents reported asking others about the patient's mood, and the majority of both groups interview and observe the patient. 86% of CPs and 45% of MPs use standardized measures. Most of the CPs made adaptations to the measures, as did more than a third of MPs. The majority of both groups made adaptations to the scores.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Most clinicians assessing mood in this population ask others about the person. Mood measures are used, but the administration and score interpretation are frequently adapted, bringing the validity of the use of measures in this population into question. Although there was overlap regarding methods used by surveyed clinicians, there was no clear consensus on how mood should be assessed in this population.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9082,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Brain injury\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-16\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Brain injury\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/02699052.2025.2493354\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"NEUROSCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Brain injury","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02699052.2025.2493354","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:通过标准化测量和临床访谈来评估严重脑损伤后持续存在认知和接受性沟通障碍的人的情绪是具有挑战性的。这项研究考察了英国的医疗保健专业人员如何通过两项在线调查来评估这一人群,一项是临床心理学家(CPs),另一项是医学专业人员(MPs)。方法:通过社交媒体和邀请电子邮件的方式向确定的服务机构、专业机构和特殊兴趣群体进行招募。调查回答是通过多项选择和自由文本。采用描述性统计和内容分析对反馈进行分析。结果:55名CPs和29名MPs有反应。所有的受访者都报告说,他们向其他人询问了患者的情绪,两组中的大多数人都采访并观察了患者。86%的CPs和45%的MPs使用标准化的测量方法。大多数国会议员都对这些措施做出了调整,超过三分之一的国会议员也是如此。两组中的大多数人都对分数做出了调整。结论:大多数临床医生在评估这一人群的情绪时都会询问他人的情况。使用情绪测量,但管理和分数解释经常被调整,使测量在这一人群中使用的有效性受到质疑。尽管被调查的临床医生使用的方法有重叠,但在如何评估这一人群的情绪方面没有明确的共识。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The assessment of mood in people with severe cognitive and communication impairments following brain injury: a survey of UK-based professionals.

Aim: Assessing mood via standardized measures and clinical interviews is challenging in people with ongoing cognitive and receptive communication impairments after a severe brain injury. This study examined how healthcare professionals in the United Kingdom assess this population via two online surveys, one of clinical psychologists (CPs) and one of medical professionals (MPs).

Method: Recruitment was completed via social media and invitational e-mails to identified services, professional bodies and special interest groups. Survey responses were via multiple choice and free text. Responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics and content analysis.

Results: 55 CPs and 29 MPs responded. All respondents reported asking others about the patient's mood, and the majority of both groups interview and observe the patient. 86% of CPs and 45% of MPs use standardized measures. Most of the CPs made adaptations to the measures, as did more than a third of MPs. The majority of both groups made adaptations to the scores.

Conclusions: Most clinicians assessing mood in this population ask others about the person. Mood measures are used, but the administration and score interpretation are frequently adapted, bringing the validity of the use of measures in this population into question. Although there was overlap regarding methods used by surveyed clinicians, there was no clear consensus on how mood should be assessed in this population.

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
Brain injury
Brain injury 医学-康复医学
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
5.30%
发文量
148
审稿时长
12 months
期刊介绍: Brain Injury publishes critical information relating to research and clinical practice, adult and pediatric populations. The journal covers a full range of relevant topics relating to clinical, translational, and basic science research. Manuscripts address emergency and acute medical care, acute and post-acute rehabilitation, family and vocational issues, and long-term supports. Coverage includes assessment and interventions for functional, communication, neurological and psychological 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