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: Online knowledge translation (KT) approaches are becoming increasingly prevalent within healthcare due to their accessibility and facilitation of international support networks. Online platforms enable timely and far‐reaching dissemination of current evidence and best‐practice recommendations. Although there is potential to improve the uptake of rehabilitation guidelines, it is essential to consider the acceptability of online approaches to healthcare professionals to ensure their successful integration within everyday clinical settings. Aims: To establish the prospective acceptability of a theoretically informed online intervention for speech pathologists, Aphasia Nexus: Connecting Evidence to Practice, that aims to facilitate the implementation of aphasia best practice. Methods & Procedures: A mixed‐methods multinational electronic survey based on the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability (TFA) completed by aphasia researchers and clinicians. Outcomes & Results: A total of 43 participants completed the survey with 91% (n = 39) indicating that they would use Aphasia Nexus. Understanding the intervention and how it works (intervention coherence as per the TFA) was the key factor influencing the likelihood of integration within everyday clinical practice. Participants identified potential areas where the intervention could influence service change and also recommended further design and content changes to improve the intervention. Conclusions & Implications: Aphasia Nexus is an acceptable platform for further feasibility testing in the form of a pilot trial within an Australian‐based health service. The study progresses the theory of TFA as it was a valuable framework facilitating the identification of prominent factors influencing acceptability. The study also informs further intervention refinements in preparation for the next stage of research. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: What is already known on the subject: Online strategies have the potential to enhance KT and promote the uptake of rehabilitation guidelines. An online intervention, however, can only be effective if implemented well. For this reason, it is essential to establish the acceptability of online interventions to the intended recipients and therefore increase the likelihood of successful implementation. What this paper adds to existing knowledge: This study used a theoretically based framework to establish the acceptability of an online implementation intervention, Aphasia Nexus, to multinational aphasia clinicians and researchers. It demonstrated the value in identifying the prominent factors influencing acceptability to inform further intervention refinements and warrant continuing research. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work?: Speech pathologists should use online platforms to drive the implementation of best practice on an international scale. It is important for clinicians to have an in‐depth understanding of online interventions and how they work to enhance their successful uptake into routine clinical practice. Aphasia Nexus is an acceptable online platform for implementing best practice in aphasia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Bridging the research–practice gap in autism communication services is an identified priority for improving services. Limited research has investigated the views of practitioners regarding this research–practice gap. Investigation of the barriers experienced and facilitators used in clinical practice may assist to identify scalable and sustainable strategies to increase use of evidence‐based practices (EBPs) in the delivery of communication services to children with autism. Aims: To elucidate how Australian speech pathologists engage with external evidence and how communication outcomes are measured to demonstrate the effectiveness of service provision to children with autism. Methods & Procedures: A total of 15 Australian speech pathologists, with experience ranging from less than 1 to more than 16 years, participated in three focus groups. Data from focus groups were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis within an interpretive phenomenological paradigm. Outcomes & Results: Seven themes were identified. Participants reported on the diversity of individuals with autism, their experiences of resource constraints, seeking collegial advice and accessing a diverse range of evidence sources, the role of clinical expertise in translating evidence to practice, the barriers experienced in outcome measurement and use of stakeholders to facilitate data collection to demonstrate outcomes. Conclusions & Implications: Individual practitioner skill and beliefs are facilitators to translating research to practice. Interventions to improve clinician use of EBP should address the skill and belief barriers, aiming to increase a clinician's EBP self‐efficacy and increasing their expectation that investing in EBP activities will result in improved services for children with autism. Modelling and reflective practice are two strategies that may have an application as interventions to improve EBP use in clinical practice. What this paper adds: What is already known on the subject: Constrained resources, especially lack of time, is a barrier to routine uptake of best available evidence in clinical services for children with autism. What this paper adds to existing knowledge: In this study, the perception that speech pathologists lacked time to engage in EBP activities was linked with the speech pathologist's research skill and their beliefs about the benefits of engaging in EBP. Speech Pathologists reported using a range of information sources, as "evidence" but also reported feeling uneasy when using evidence of disputable, or unknown quality. Accessibility and relevance to their individual client were highly prioritised in selecting evidence. Clinical expertise was an essential skill for research translation. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work?: Interventions which target professional beliefs and research translation capability are requisite for motivating speech pathologists to improve their use of EBP.Modelling of EBP use, individual reflective practice and collegial active listening to facilitate reflective practice, might be useful strategies which target beliefs and capability of individual speech pathologists; thereby changing their EBP use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Prioritized research agendas are viewed internationally as an important method for ensuring that health research meets actual areas of clinical need. There is growing evidence for speech–language therapy‐prioritized research agendas, particularly in disorder‐specific areas. However, there are few general research priority agendas to guide speech–language therapy research. Aims: To collaboratively develop a prioritized research agenda for an Australian public health context with clinical speech–language therapists (SLTs), academic SLTs and consumers of speech–language therapy services. Methods & Procedures: An initial stimulus list of potential research areas for prioritization was collected from SLTs via an online survey. Two categories (service delivery and expanded scope of practice) were selected from this list for prioritization due to their relevance across multiple health services. The Nominal Group Technique (NGT) was used to develop a prioritized research agenda for each of the two categories. One NGT session was conducted with each of the three participant groups (clinical SLTs, academic SLTs, consumers) for each category (total NGT sessions = six). The prioritization data for each group within each category were summed to give a single, ranked prioritized research agenda for each category. Outcomes & Results: Two prioritized research agendas were developed. Within each agenda, SLTs and consumers prioritized a need for more research in areas related to specific practice areas (e.g., Alternative and Augmentative Communication, Communication Partner Training), as well as broader professional issues (e.g., telehealth, working with culturally and linguistically diverse families). Conclusions & Implications: The current findings support the need for funding proposals and targeted projects that address these identified areas of need. What this paper adds: What is already known on this subject: Evidence‐based practice is a critical component of SLT practice. There is often a disconnect between the research evidence generated and areas of clinical need, and in some areas a lack of evidence. Prioritized research agendas can help drive research in areas of clinical need. What this paper adds to existing knowledge: A collaborative, prioritized SLT research agenda was developed using the NGT according to the views of clinical SLTs, academic SLTs and consumers of speech–language therapy services in a conglomerate of public health services. SLTs and consumers identified a need for further research in specific areas of SLT practice as well as broader emerging professional issues What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work?: Targeted research projects funded on a large scale are required to address these identified areas of need. Other health services around the world could replicate this prioritization process to drive research in areas of clinical need [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Background: When planning evidence‐based intervention services for children with phonology‐based speech sound disorders (SSD), speech and language therapists (SLTs) need to integrate research evidence regarding service delivery and intervention intensity within their clinical practice. However, relatively little is known about the optimal intensity of phonological interventions and whether SLTs’ services align with the research evidence. Aims: The aims are twofold. First, to review external evidence (i.e., empirical research evidence external to day‐to‐day clinical practice) regarding service delivery and intervention intensity for phonological interventions. Second, to investigate SLTs’ clinical practice with children with phonology‐based SSD in Australia, focusing on service delivery and intensity. By considering these complementary sources of evidence, SLTs and researchers will be better placed to understand the state of the external evidence regarding the delivery of phonological interventions and appreciate the challenges facing SLTs in providing evidence‐based services. Methods & Procedures: Two studies are presented. The first is a review of phonological intervention research published between 1979 and 2016. Details regarding service delivery and intervention intensity were extracted from the 199 papers that met inclusion criteria identified through a systematic search. The second study was an online survey of 288 SLTs working in Australia, focused on the service delivery and intensity of intervention provided in clinical practice. Main Contributions: There is a gap between the external evidence regarding service delivery and intervention intensity and the internal evidence from clinical practice. Most published intervention research has reported to provide intervention two to three times per week in individual sessions delivered by an SLT in a university clinic, in sessions lasting 30–60 min comprising 100 production trials. SLTs reported providing services at intensities below that found in the literature. Further, they reported workplace, client and clinician factors that influenced the intensity of intervention they were able to provide to children with phonology‐based SSD. Conclusions & Implications: Insufficient detail in the reporting of intervention intensity within published research coupled with service delivery constraints may affect the implementation of empirical evidence into everyday clinical practice. Research investigating innovative solutions to service delivery challenges is needed to provide SLTs with evidence that is relevant and feasible for clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]