Search

Background: People with an acquired brain injury (ABI) find it challenging to use social media due to changes in their cognition and communication skills. Using social media can provide opportunities for positive connection, but there is a lack of interventions specifically designed to support safe and successful social media use after ABI. Aims: To investigate the outcomes of completing a social media skills intervention and identify barriers and facilitators for future implementation. Methods & Procedures: The study used a mixed‐methods, pre‐post‐intervention design. A total of 17 adults with an ABI were recruited. Participants completed an intervention that included a short self‐guided course about social media skills (social‐ABI‐lity course), and then participated in a private, moderated Facebook group over a 12‐week period (social‐ABI‐lity Facebook group). Data were collected over this period through observation of group activity and weekly surveys. They were also collected on social media use and quality of life at pre‐intervention, post‐intervention and after 3 months. Participants provided feedback on the experience of participating in the programme via a post‐intervention interview. Outcomes & Results: At post‐intervention, there were significant improvements in confidence in using Facebook (p = 0.002) and enjoyment of using Facebook to connect with others (p = 0.013). There was no significant change in reported quality of life, although participants described the multiple benefits of connection they perceived from involvement in the group. Observational data and feedback interviews were informative about the feasibility and acceptability of the intervention. Conclusions & Implications: This pilot study provided preliminary evidence that an intervention comprising a short, self‐guided training course and a private, moderated Facebook group improved outcomes for people with ABI. Key recommendations for future implementation include embedding active peer moderators within groups and taking an individualized approach to delivery of the intervention. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: What is already known on the subject: Research has documented the challenges that people with ABI experience in using social media, and the difficulty for rehabilitation clinicians in providing appropriate support in this field. What this paper adds to existing knowledge: This pilot study reports the outcomes of people with ABI completing a short, self‐guided social media skills course and participating in a private, moderated Facebook group. After the intervention, participants reported significantly increased confidence and enjoyment in using Facebook, described the benefits of connection found in the groups, and suggested potential improvements for future implementation. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work?: With the growing use of social media for connection and participation, there is a professional obligation to address social media communication skills in cognitive–communication rehabilitation for people with ABI. The findings of this study will inform interventions and future research to assist people with ABI to build their social media skills for communication, social support and a sense of connection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Early identification and intervention for hearing loss is important for supporting language development. Despite this, parents are required to overcome barriers to access hearing assessments for their children. Aims: To identify the enablers and barriers to accessing hearing assessments for Australian children identified by their parents, and to compare between metropolitan, regional and rural areas. Methods & Procedures: This sequential, explanatory mixed‐methods study was undertaken online and included participants in metropolitan, regional and rural area of Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Western Australia and the Northern Territory. A total of 56 participants participated in the surveys, and 10 participated in semi‐structured interviews. Outcomes & Results: Participants in metropolitan areas were more likely to have services in their area; however, access to hearing assessment was related more to individual circumstances (including health literacy skills) rather than geographical location. Many participants experienced long wait times, reduced flexibility, and a lack of audiologists experienced in working with children. Conclusions & Implications: Barriers to hearing assessments (which assist with early identification and intervention for hearing loss) should be addressed so that children have access to clear auditory information to assist with their speech and language development. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: What is already known on the subject: Poor audiological input can lead to poor speech, language and literacy outcomes for children. What this paper adds to the existing knowledge: Although previous research indicates that people in regional and remote locations experience difficulty accessing health services within a reasonable timeframe, in this study barriers were experienced regardless of geographical location, and were dependent on individual circumstances. Many parents are unaware of the impact of hearing on speech and language. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work?: Further research might examine how health literacy affects access to hearing assessment. Parents shared several potential solutions to these access barriers which should be considered by service providers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Speech and language therapists (SLTs) use videofluoroscopic swallow study (VFSS) results to manage dysphagia. Yet, in some services only doctors can directly request a VFSS, potentially creating workflow inefficiencies and delaying patient access to VFSS. An alternative model, where SLTs directly refer patients for VFSS, is used in many services in the UK and Australia. However, processes for implementing and sustaining this model have not been reported. Aims: To evaluate the implementation of an SLT‐led inpatient VFSS referring model using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to ascertain implementation barriers, facilitators and critical sustainability factors. Methods & Procedures: This implementation evaluation examined stakeholder perceptions of implementing the SLT‐led VFSS referring model via interviews of (1) SLTs who treat and refer inpatients for VFSS; (2) doctors who manage and refer inpatients for VFSS; (3) radiologists; and (4) trained VFSS referring SLTs. The CFIR was used to prospectively guide implementation planning, evaluation and outcome reporting, regarding barriers, facilitators and sustainability factors. Outcomes & Results: Implementation facilitators were (1) the advantage of SLT‐led VFSS referring over the standard model (doctors referring), in promoting high‐quality VFSS referrals; (2) compatibility of the model with the SLT skill set; (3) supportive communication networks between staff groups; and (4) engaging stakeholders throughout implementation. Adequate availability of trained VFSS referring SLTs was both a barrier and a facilitator of implementation. It was also a critical sustainability factor, along with ongoing staff education and outcome monitoring. Conclusions & Implications: The CFIR supported systematic evaluation of implementation facilitators and barriers, and adjustment of factors critical for implementing and sustaining the new model. Findings may assist other organizations to establish the SLT‐led VFSS referring model. What this paper adds: What is already known on the subject: Models where SLTs directly refer patients for VFSS have been described in the literature, with evidence of appropriate referrals and adherence to radiation safety standards. However, the process for establishing and sustaining this referring model has not been published. What this paper adds to existing knowledge: This study describes the process and outcomes of implementing an SLT‐led VFSS referring model, using the CFIR. A key advantage of the new model that facilitated implementation was the improved quality of VFSS referrals compared with the standard referring model. Important facilitating factors in the environment were the compatibility of the model with SLTs' skillset and supportive communication network between doctors and SLTs. Initially, an implementation barrier was the inadequate availability of trained SLT referrers. Using proactive implementation strategies, more referrers were trained (which was a facilitating factor for implementing and sustaining the model). What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work?: This study highlights that successful implementation requires more than just an effective model. Features of the environment require consideration to minimize barriers and optimize facilitating factors, supported by proactive implementation strategies. Planning and evaluating implementation processes and outcomes using a standardized implementation framework such as CFIR aided understanding of barriers and facilitators for introducing the SLT‐led VFSS referring model. This process may assist other services to implement the model. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Despite emerging evidence of validity and reliability, speech and language therapists' (SLT) uptake of telehealth has been limited and barriers remain to the effective and confident use of this service model. The COVID‐19 pandemic has caused significant disruption to essential health services, including speech and language therapy assessment and intervention, meaning that telehealth must now be considered as part of the suite of service delivery options for all clinicians. Aims: To explore the perceived barriers and facilitators of telehealth among community paediatric SLTs before and after their use of a telehealth platform with an embedded standardised assessment tool. Methods & Procedures: Mixed‐methods questionnaires were developed for this study and completed by SLTs before and after the 3‐month trial of the telehealth platform. A total of 38 SLTs completed the pre‐trial questionnaire and training in the use of telehealth platform (Coviu), including instruction in using a standardised, norm referenced language test as an integrated tool within the Coviu platform. A total of 27 SLTs went on to use the telehealth platform, and 25 of these completed the post‐trial questionnaire on which subsequent qualitative and quantitative analysis was completed. Outcomes & Results: Prior to using the platform, perceived barriers included technology issues, limited clinician experience and concerns around parent acceptance of the service. Potential facilitators included access to appropriate platforms, tools and resources as well as increased clinician confidence with telehealth. Following the trial, barriers to telehealth use continued to include technology barriers, particularly internet stability, and client issues, including suitability for telehealth services. Facilitators for future telehealth use included access to appropriate platforms for telehealth, stable and appropriate internet connectivity, and more extensive telehealth resources for both assessment and intervention for this mode of service delivery. Conclusions & Implications: This study provides insights into the perceptions of the barriers and facilitating factors for telehealth use among community‐based SLTs. This information will be useful in developing strategies to promote uptake and effective and confident use of telehealth as a mode of service delivery beyond the pandemic. What this paper adds: What is already known on the subject: Research about telehealth has shown that it is a reliable and valid way of delivering speech pathology services, yet many clinicians have been wary of its use and uptake of telehealth prior to COVID‐19 had been limited. We wanted to know what SLTs thought about using telehealth before and after participating in a 3‐month trial of a telehealth platform with an embedded formal language assessment. What this study adds to existing knowledge: This study indicates that technology issues including internet stability are a barrier to effective telehealth services, but that appropriate telehealth platforms, resources and experience are facilitators of uptake and successful use of telehealth. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work?: This information will be useful in developing strategies to promote uptake and effective and confident use of telehealth as a mode of service delivery for children during and beyond the pandemic, including those isolated by geographical or transport barriers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]