Search

Background: Evidence should guide decisions in aphasia practice across the continuum of stroke care; however, evidence–practice gaps persist. This is particularly pertinent in the acute setting where 30% of people with stroke will have aphasia, and speech pathologists experience many challenges implementing evidence‐based practice. This has important consequences for people with aphasia and their close others, as well as speech pathologists working in acute settings. Aims: This study protocol details how we will target practice change using a behavioural approach, with the aim of promoting the uptake of synthesized evidence in aphasia management post‐stroke in the acute hospital setting. Methods & Procedures: We will conduct a mixed‐methods before‐and‐after study following the Knowledge‐to‐Action (KTA) framework. Researchers, speech pathologists and people with lived experience of aphasia will collaborate to identify and prioritize practice gaps, and develop and implement changes to clinical practice based on the Theoretical Domains Framework and Behaviour Change Wheel. Discussion: This study may provide a template for acute stroke services in how to use an implementation science approach to promote the application of synthesized evidence into routine clinical practice to ensure people with aphasia receive high‐quality services. Collaboration among researchers, healthcare providers, people with aphasia and their close others ensures that the identification and targeting of practice gaps are driven by theory, lived experience and the local context. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: What is already known on this subject: Synthesized evidence, such as clinical guidelines and consensus statements, provides the highest level of evidence to inform clinical practice, yet discrepancies between delivered care and evidence remain. This discrepancy is of note in the acute setting where clinicians report many challenges implementing the best available evidence, combined with a high proportion of people with stroke who will have aphasia (30%). There are many reasons why evidence is not put into practice, and efforts to change clinical practice need to consider these barriers when developing interventions. What this paper adds to existing knowledge: This study protocol details an implementation science approach to affect clinical practice change, informed by a collaboration of key stakeholders (researchers, speech pathologists, and people with aphasia and their close others). Protocol papers that focus on bridging the gap between evidence and practice are uncommon in communication disorders; moreover, explicit prioritization of practice gaps is a critical but often overlooked aspect of promoting evidence‐based practice. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work?: This protocol provides insights into how one study site identified and prioritized evidence–practice gaps using a participatory approach. We provide insights into how clinical practice change may occur by describing how we plan to identify priority evidence–practice gaps and develop an intervention to improve the use of aphasia evidence in routine practice. This protocol aims to share an implementation science approach to service improvement that may be replicated across other services. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Farmers face a range of factors that negatively influence their mental health and suicide risk, yet have limited access to appropriate support. Behavioural activation (BA) is an evidence‐based therapy that can be effectively delivered by nonclinical workers. Working with members of farming communities to deliver BA to their peers has the potential to overcome many well‐established barriers to mental health help‐seeking and improve outcomes for this at‐risk group. Objective: This paper describes the findings of a co‐design phase informing the development of a peer (farmer)‐led approach for delivering BA for farmers living with depression or low mood. Design: This qualitative study used a co‐design approach involving members of the target community. Focus groups were transcribed and analysed using Thematic Analysis and the Framework approach. Findings: Ten online focus groups with 22 participants were held over 3 months. Four overarching, interlinked themes were identified: (i) filling the gap in rural mental health support; (ii) alignment with the farming context—tailoring how, where and when we engage about mental health; (iii) the 'messenger' is as important as the message; and (iv) sustainability, governance and support. Discussion: Findings suggest BA could be a contextually appropriate model of support for the farming community—given its practical and solution‐focused approach—and could help improve access to support. Having peer workers deliver the intervention was viewed as appropriate. Ensuring governance structures are developed to support peers to deliver the intervention will be essential to facilitate effectiveness, safety and sustainability. Conclusion: Insights gained through co‐design have been critical to the success of developing this new model of support for members of farming communities experiencing depression or low mood. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]