Search

Background: Subjective well‐being (SWB) and quality of life (QOL) are intricately related constructs. Recent research shows both constructs share some facets, but are distinct entities. It is unclear, both internationally and in the Netherlands, if and how SLTs address SWB in clinical practice. The current study was set up to explore Dutch SLTs' perceptions of SWB in relation to the management of people with aphasia. Aims: To describe how Dutch SLTs, working with people with aphasia in a private practice or a healthcare setting, address patient's SWB during diagnosis and treatment, and to identify barriers and facilitators they experience when addressing SWB. Methods & Procedures: A qualitative research design with a phenomenological approach was used. SLTs from private practices and healthcare settings were invited to participate in individual interviews and a focus group. The data were analysed thematically using a combination of inductive and deductive methods. Outcomes & Results: Eight SLTs participated in the study. The SLTs' experiences were captured in four themes that emerged from the data: (1) SWB is a multifaceted concept and depends on patient‐specific factors: premorbid factors, life priorities and time post‐stroke; (2) SLTs experience more responsibility for patients' SWB than their profession allows; (3) collaboration between SLTs and patients, patients' network and other healthcare professionals is required to address SWB during diagnosis and treatment; and (4) misinterpretations are inevitable when SLTs or the patients' network address patients' SWB. Conclusions & Implications: The results showed that SLTs feel responsible for addressing SWB in the management of people with aphasia. Their perception of the concept of SWB is similar to the definition used in the literature and is multifaceted. They feel responsible for the part of SWB that is related to communicative functioning, but less so for the more heuristic aspects of SWB. This is related to their experienced limitation of influence on SWB, which for some leaves them feeling out of depth and uncertain about boundaries between professionals. Addressing SWB in a multidisciplinary team is therefore considered important in order to adequately and fully capture someone's SWB and reduce to clinicians' experienced burden and responsibility. What this paper addsWhat is already known on this subjectRecent studies suggest that quality of life measures may lack facets related to subjective well‐being (SWB). Aphasia is likely to impact on SWB of a stroke survivor, but it is unclear if and how SWB is addressed by speech and language therapists in diagnosis, and treatment of Dutch PWA.What this study addsThis study provides insight into the operationalization of SWB in Dutch clinical practice, including barriers SLTs experience when addressing SWB.Clinical implications of this studyMonitoring and influencing SWB of people with aphasia is a complex process, that SLTs consider only possible in multi‐disciplinary teams. Clear guidelines on roles and responsibilities between various disciplines involved are necessary to improve care for people with aphasia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The increase in the number of reported conversation partner programmes for conversation partners of people with aphasia demonstrates increased awareness of partner needs and the positive effect of trained partners on the communicative abilities of the person with aphasia. Predominantly small-scale studies describe the effectiveness of conversation partner training (CPT) and how partners perceive this training. The view of partners on this service commission remains largely unknown. Aims To explore the experiences of partners of people with aphasia with a CPT programme when it was newly introduced into rehabilitation settings. Methods & Procedures Seventeen partners of people with aphasia were interviewed using a semi-structured format about their experience with Partners of Aphasic Clients Conversation Training (PACT). Transcribed interviews were analysed using qualitative content analysis. Outcomes & Results Four categories representative of the practical nature and individual tailoring of PACT were identified: engaging with PACT; learning from PACT; reflecting on behaviour and emotions; and experiences with earlier speech and language therapy (SLT). Two themes were identified cutting across all categories: the nature of communication is difficult to grasp; and balancing roles as partner, carer and client. Conclusions & Implications Partners appreciated the training programme once their initial lack of awareness of the interactive nature of communication had been addressed. SLTs need to be clear about the collaborative nature of conversations and what can be offered within the rehabilitation trajectory to address conversation alongside language training. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Gesticulation (gestures accompanying speech) and pantomime (gestures in the absence of speech) can each be comprehensible. Little is known about the differences between these two gesture modes in people with aphasia. Aims To discover whether there are differences in the communicative use of gesticulation and pantomime in QH, a person with severe fluent aphasia. Methods & Procedures QH performed two tasks: naming objects and retelling a story. He did this once in a verbal condition (enabling gesticulation) and once in a pantomime condition. For both conditions, the comprehensibility of gestures was analysed in a forced-choice task by naïve judges. Secondly, a comparison was made between QH and healthy controls for the representation techniques used. Outcomes & Results Pantomimes produced by QH for naming objects were significantly more comprehensible than chance, whereas his gesticulation was not. For retelling a story the opposite pattern was found. When naming objects QH gesticulated much more than did healthy controls. His pantomimes for this task were simpler than those used by the control group. For retelling a story no differences were found. Conclusions & Implications Although QH did not make full use of each gesture modes' potential, both did contribute to QH's comprehensibility. Crucially, the benefits of each mode differed across tasks. This implies that both gesture modes should be taken into account separately in models of speech and gesture production and in clinical practice for different communicative settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]