脑卒中后失语症的康复:概念分析

Laoighse Gleeson, C. Jagoe
{"title":"脑卒中后失语症的康复:概念分析","authors":"Laoighse Gleeson, C. Jagoe","doi":"10.3233/acs-220013","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND: The term ‘recovery’ frequents the literature relating to aphasia, however there has been limited research directly investigating the concept (or meaning) the term represents. OBJECTIVE: To present a concept analysis of ‘recovery’ in the context of post-stroke aphasia and investigate the consistency in meaning, use and interpretation of the concept, in relation the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) and the Life Participation Approach to Aphasia (LPAA). METHODS: Rodgers’ evolutionary method of concept analysis was used to analyse the studies retrieved through a systematic search of PubMed and CINAHL bibliographic databases and a journal search of Aphasiology. The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) and the Life Participation Approach to Aphasia (LPAA) were used as frameworks to explore the correspondence of the concept of ‘recovery’ with current speech and language therapy service delivery approaches. RESULTS: Seventy-one papers were retrieved and analysis revealed six core attributes of the concept; recovery as (1) a process (2) variable dependant (3) existing on a spectrum (4) facilitated (5) quantifiable (6) subject to deceleration. The concept of recovery was found to be impairment-oriented, demonstrating a poor overall correspondence with current frameworks underpinning service delivery. CONCLUSIONS: Facilitating recovery in the context of post-stroke aphasia is a widely discussed therapeutic priority, yet the concept of recovery itself remains ambiguous. Clarification of the current conceptual status of recovery is necessary to ensure consistency in meaning, use and interpretation of the concept, in recognition of its potential implications on research and service delivery.","PeriodicalId":93726,"journal":{"name":"Advances in communication and swallowing","volume":"129 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Recovery in the context of post-stroke aphasia: A concept analysis\",\"authors\":\"Laoighse Gleeson, C. Jagoe\",\"doi\":\"10.3233/acs-220013\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"BACKGROUND: The term ‘recovery’ frequents the literature relating to aphasia, however there has been limited research directly investigating the concept (or meaning) the term represents. OBJECTIVE: To present a concept analysis of ‘recovery’ in the context of post-stroke aphasia and investigate the consistency in meaning, use and interpretation of the concept, in relation the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) and the Life Participation Approach to Aphasia (LPAA). METHODS: Rodgers’ evolutionary method of concept analysis was used to analyse the studies retrieved through a systematic search of PubMed and CINAHL bibliographic databases and a journal search of Aphasiology. The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) and the Life Participation Approach to Aphasia (LPAA) were used as frameworks to explore the correspondence of the concept of ‘recovery’ with current speech and language therapy service delivery approaches. RESULTS: Seventy-one papers were retrieved and analysis revealed six core attributes of the concept; recovery as (1) a process (2) variable dependant (3) existing on a spectrum (4) facilitated (5) quantifiable (6) subject to deceleration. The concept of recovery was found to be impairment-oriented, demonstrating a poor overall correspondence with current frameworks underpinning service delivery. CONCLUSIONS: Facilitating recovery in the context of post-stroke aphasia is a widely discussed therapeutic priority, yet the concept of recovery itself remains ambiguous. Clarification of the current conceptual status of recovery is necessary to ensure consistency in meaning, use and interpretation of the concept, in recognition of its potential implications on research and service delivery.\",\"PeriodicalId\":93726,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Advances in communication and swallowing\",\"volume\":\"129 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-11-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Advances in communication and swallowing\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3233/acs-220013\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advances in communication and swallowing","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3233/acs-220013","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:术语“恢复”经常出现在与失语症相关的文献中,然而,直接调查该术语所代表的概念(或含义)的研究有限。目的:对脑卒中后失语症中“康复”的概念进行分析,并探讨国际功能、残疾和健康分类(ICF)和失语症生活参与方法(LPAA)在概念的含义、使用和解释上的一致性。方法:采用Rodgers概念分析的进化方法,系统检索PubMed和CINAHL书目数据库,检索失语学期刊,对检索到的研究进行分析。使用国际功能、残疾和健康分类(ICF)和失语症的生活参与方法(LPAA)作为框架来探索“恢复”概念与当前言语和语言治疗服务提供方法的对应关系。结果:检索到71篇论文,分析揭示了该概念的6个核心属性;恢复作为(1)一个过程(2)变量依赖(3)存在于一个频谱(4)促进(5)可量化(6)受制于减速。人们发现,恢复的概念是以损害为导向的,这表明与支持提供服务的现行框架总体上不太符合。结论:促进脑卒中后失语症的康复是一个被广泛讨论的治疗重点,然而康复的概念本身仍然是模糊的。必须澄清复原的目前概念状况,以确保这一概念的含义、使用和解释的一致性,并认识到它对研究和提供服务的潜在影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Recovery in the context of post-stroke aphasia: A concept analysis
BACKGROUND: The term ‘recovery’ frequents the literature relating to aphasia, however there has been limited research directly investigating the concept (or meaning) the term represents. OBJECTIVE: To present a concept analysis of ‘recovery’ in the context of post-stroke aphasia and investigate the consistency in meaning, use and interpretation of the concept, in relation the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) and the Life Participation Approach to Aphasia (LPAA). METHODS: Rodgers’ evolutionary method of concept analysis was used to analyse the studies retrieved through a systematic search of PubMed and CINAHL bibliographic databases and a journal search of Aphasiology. The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) and the Life Participation Approach to Aphasia (LPAA) were used as frameworks to explore the correspondence of the concept of ‘recovery’ with current speech and language therapy service delivery approaches. RESULTS: Seventy-one papers were retrieved and analysis revealed six core attributes of the concept; recovery as (1) a process (2) variable dependant (3) existing on a spectrum (4) facilitated (5) quantifiable (6) subject to deceleration. The concept of recovery was found to be impairment-oriented, demonstrating a poor overall correspondence with current frameworks underpinning service delivery. CONCLUSIONS: Facilitating recovery in the context of post-stroke aphasia is a widely discussed therapeutic priority, yet the concept of recovery itself remains ambiguous. Clarification of the current conceptual status of recovery is necessary to ensure consistency in meaning, use and interpretation of the concept, in recognition of its potential implications on research and service delivery.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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