Search

Purpose: In this paper, we present an exploratory, qualitative strand of a multiphase program evaluation of the Canadian-based SNAP® Youth Justice (SNAP YJ) model for males involved with the youth criminal justice system. SNAP YJ's therapeutic approach is founded on the evidence-based SNAP (Stop Now And Plan) model which focuses on strategies to enhance emotion regulation, self-control, and problem-solving for latency-aged children and their families. Integrating best practices from the literature, the SNAP YJ intervention uses technology (digital modules) to convey the manualized strategies and program sessions, engaging youth in an interactive manner. This systemic, cognitive behavioral intervention is designed to reduce further contact with the law and/or gang affiliation. The objectives of this study are to understand youth experiences of programing, enrich and contextualize preliminary outcome findings, and further develop programing through the inclusion of the youth perspective and feedback. Methods: A thematic analysis of 15 interviews with program participants from diverse backgrounds was conducted. Results: The results revealed a continuum of learning related to self-understanding and awareness of feelings; thinking and consequences; and prosocial skills and behavior. Discussion: Refinements to the program to target increased program effectiveness as a result of youth experiences are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: This study investigated the perspectives of professionals from the Dutch audiological centres on the definition and care pathways of children with suspected auditory processing disorders (susAPD).Design: focus group interviews.Study sample: In total, 45 professionals from 6 disciplines, representing 22 different audiological centres and one ambulatory service, participated in five parallel focus group interviews. Participants had a variety of experience in diagnosing and advising children with suspected APD.Results:Qualitative analysis (open and thematic) identified four themes (“Definition”, “Causes”, “Diagnostic Procedures” and “Clinical Reasoning”) expressing a variety of perspectives. Differences in perspectives were mainly affected by two debates: (1) whether or not APD exists as a pure (auditory) disorder and (2) whether or not current AP-tests are suitable in diagnosing children with listening difficulties. They also expressed a need for more guidance from the literature in their clinical decision making process.Conclusions: Professionals from the Dutch audiological centres share a broad perspective on children with APD. The ICF framework supports this perspective, thereby diminishing the need for a clear definition. The use of AP-tests should be limited to children where broader developmental disorders are first ruled out; a possible “pure” APD could then be diagnosed in a limited number of children. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]