后天性脑损伤患者的认知缺陷意识受损与职业表现中的认知策略使用

Q3 Health Professions
Sabine van Erp, E. Steultjens
{"title":"后天性脑损伤患者的认知缺陷意识受损与职业表现中的认知策略使用","authors":"Sabine van Erp, E. Steultjens","doi":"10.1108/ijot-10-2019-0012","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nPurpose\nThis study aims to explore the difference in cognitive strategy use during observed occupational performance between and within different levels of impaired awareness of deficits of individuals with acquired brain injury (ABI).\n\n\nDesign/methodology/approach\nA cross-sectional study (N = 24) of individuals with ABI receiving rehabilitation and with the capacity to demonstrate goal-directed behaviour (Allen cognitive level screen score = 4.0) was undertaken. Cognitive strategy use during occupational performance of daily activities (measured with the perceive, recall, plan and perform [PRPP]) was evaluated between and within different awareness levels (awareness levels measured by the self-regulation skill interview). Statistical analyses, using independent t-test, Mann Whitney U test, ANOVA and Friedman test, were executed.\n\n\nFindings\nSignificant differences were shown for both strengths and weaknesses in cognitive strategy use between emergent (n = 13) and anticipatory awareness (n = 11) groups on PRPP items “perceive”, “sensing” and “mapping”; and “searches”, “recall steps”, “identify obstacles”, “calibrates”, “stops”, “continues” and “persists”. Within emergent awareness group, participants scored lowest related to “perceive”, “plan”, “sensing”, “mapping”, “programming” and “evaluating”. Within anticipatory awareness group, participants scored lowest related to “plan”, “programming” and “evaluating”.\n\n\nPractical implications\nThis study showed differences in cognitive strategy application during task performance in individuals with emergent or anticipatory awareness deficits that fit with theoretical expectations. It is recommended to make use of the PRPP assessment results (strengths and weaknesses in cognitive strategy application) to support the level of awareness determination. The PRPP assessment results and the level of awareness tailor the clinical reasoning process for personalised intervention planning and cognitive strategy training.\n\n\nOriginality/value\nBecause impaired awareness has so much impact on the course and outcome of rehabilitation (Rotenberg-Shpigelman et al., 2014), in clinical practice, it is of paramount importance to be aware of the level of awareness of the client (Smeets et al., 2017) and the effect on occupational performance.\n","PeriodicalId":36571,"journal":{"name":"Irish Journal of Occupational Therapy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-08-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1108/ijot-10-2019-0012","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Impaired awareness of deficits and cognitive strategy use in occupational performance of persons with acquired brain injury (ABI)\",\"authors\":\"Sabine van Erp, E. Steultjens\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/ijot-10-2019-0012\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\nPurpose\\nThis study aims to explore the difference in cognitive strategy use during observed occupational performance between and within different levels of impaired awareness of deficits of individuals with acquired brain injury (ABI).\\n\\n\\nDesign/methodology/approach\\nA cross-sectional study (N = 24) of individuals with ABI receiving rehabilitation and with the capacity to demonstrate goal-directed behaviour (Allen cognitive level screen score = 4.0) was undertaken. Cognitive strategy use during occupational performance of daily activities (measured with the perceive, recall, plan and perform [PRPP]) was evaluated between and within different awareness levels (awareness levels measured by the self-regulation skill interview). Statistical analyses, using independent t-test, Mann Whitney U test, ANOVA and Friedman test, were executed.\\n\\n\\nFindings\\nSignificant differences were shown for both strengths and weaknesses in cognitive strategy use between emergent (n = 13) and anticipatory awareness (n = 11) groups on PRPP items “perceive”, “sensing” and “mapping”; and “searches”, “recall steps”, “identify obstacles”, “calibrates”, “stops”, “continues” and “persists”. Within emergent awareness group, participants scored lowest related to “perceive”, “plan”, “sensing”, “mapping”, “programming” and “evaluating”. Within anticipatory awareness group, participants scored lowest related to “plan”, “programming” and “evaluating”.\\n\\n\\nPractical implications\\nThis study showed differences in cognitive strategy application during task performance in individuals with emergent or anticipatory awareness deficits that fit with theoretical expectations. It is recommended to make use of the PRPP assessment results (strengths and weaknesses in cognitive strategy application) to support the level of awareness determination. The PRPP assessment results and the level of awareness tailor the clinical reasoning process for personalised intervention planning and cognitive strategy training.\\n\\n\\nOriginality/value\\nBecause impaired awareness has so much impact on the course and outcome of rehabilitation (Rotenberg-Shpigelman et al., 2014), in clinical practice, it is of paramount importance to be aware of the level of awareness of the client (Smeets et al., 2017) and the effect on occupational performance.\\n\",\"PeriodicalId\":36571,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Irish Journal of Occupational Therapy\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-08-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1108/ijot-10-2019-0012\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Irish Journal of Occupational Therapy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/ijot-10-2019-0012\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Health Professions\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Irish Journal of Occupational Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/ijot-10-2019-0012","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Health Professions","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

目的探讨获得性脑损伤(ABI)个体在不同认知缺陷水平之间和内部认知策略使用的差异。设计/方法/方法对接受康复治疗的ABI患者(N = 24)进行了横断面研究,这些患者有能力表现出目标导向的行为(Allen认知水平屏幕评分= 4.0)。在不同的意识水平(自我调节技能访谈测量的意识水平)之间和内部评估日常活动职业表现中的认知策略使用(以感知、回忆、计划和执行[PRPP]测量)。统计分析采用独立t检验、Mann Whitney U检验、ANOVA和Friedman检验。结果:意外意识组(n = 13)和预期意识组(n = 11)在PRPP项目“感知”、“感知”和“映射”上的认知策略使用优势和劣势均存在显著差异;还有“搜索”、“回忆步骤”、“识别障碍”、“校准”、“停止”、“继续”和“坚持”。在紧急意识组中,参与者在“感知”、“计划”、“感知”、“绘图”、“规划”和“评估”方面得分最低。在预期意识组中,参与者在“计划”、“规划”和“评估”方面得分最低。实际意义本研究表明,具有突发性或预见性意识缺陷的个体在任务执行过程中认知策略应用的差异符合理论预期。建议利用PRPP评估结果(认知策略应用的优势和劣势)来支持意识水平的确定。PRPP评估结果和认知水平为个性化干预计划和认知策略训练量身定制临床推理过程。独创性/价值由于意识受损对康复的过程和结果有如此大的影响(Rotenberg-Shpigelman et al., 2014),在临床实践中,了解客户的意识水平(Smeets et al., 2017)及其对职业绩效的影响至关重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Impaired awareness of deficits and cognitive strategy use in occupational performance of persons with acquired brain injury (ABI)
Purpose This study aims to explore the difference in cognitive strategy use during observed occupational performance between and within different levels of impaired awareness of deficits of individuals with acquired brain injury (ABI). Design/methodology/approach A cross-sectional study (N = 24) of individuals with ABI receiving rehabilitation and with the capacity to demonstrate goal-directed behaviour (Allen cognitive level screen score = 4.0) was undertaken. Cognitive strategy use during occupational performance of daily activities (measured with the perceive, recall, plan and perform [PRPP]) was evaluated between and within different awareness levels (awareness levels measured by the self-regulation skill interview). Statistical analyses, using independent t-test, Mann Whitney U test, ANOVA and Friedman test, were executed. Findings Significant differences were shown for both strengths and weaknesses in cognitive strategy use between emergent (n = 13) and anticipatory awareness (n = 11) groups on PRPP items “perceive”, “sensing” and “mapping”; and “searches”, “recall steps”, “identify obstacles”, “calibrates”, “stops”, “continues” and “persists”. Within emergent awareness group, participants scored lowest related to “perceive”, “plan”, “sensing”, “mapping”, “programming” and “evaluating”. Within anticipatory awareness group, participants scored lowest related to “plan”, “programming” and “evaluating”. Practical implications This study showed differences in cognitive strategy application during task performance in individuals with emergent or anticipatory awareness deficits that fit with theoretical expectations. It is recommended to make use of the PRPP assessment results (strengths and weaknesses in cognitive strategy application) to support the level of awareness determination. The PRPP assessment results and the level of awareness tailor the clinical reasoning process for personalised intervention planning and cognitive strategy training. Originality/value Because impaired awareness has so much impact on the course and outcome of rehabilitation (Rotenberg-Shpigelman et al., 2014), in clinical practice, it is of paramount importance to be aware of the level of awareness of the client (Smeets et al., 2017) and the effect on occupational performance.
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
Irish Journal of Occupational Therapy
Irish Journal of Occupational Therapy Health Professions-Occupational Therapy
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
10
审稿时长
24 weeks
×
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