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]

Individuals with mild intellectual disabilities (MID) or borderline intellectual functioning (BIF) and mental health problems or challenging behavior are difficult to reach by mainstream healthcare facilities and support organizations and frequently avoid the care they need. To improve the care for this client group in the Netherlands, the (Flexible) Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) model—originally developed for people with severe mental illness—was adapted and implemented by five organizations specialized in the care for people with MID/BIF and mental health problems or challenging behavior. After an introduction of the original ACT model and a description of the international state of the art of ACT for people with (M)ID/BIF, this paper describes the (Flexible) ACT‐MID/BIF model as developed and implemented in the Netherlands. Professionals' and clients' experiences with this new type of care are reported as well. Implications for clinical practice, policy and research are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: There is growing acknowledgement of the benefits of incorporating a bio-psychosocial model of understanding pain within physical therapist practice1. Consequently this has led to an increasing interest in interventions such Pain neuroscience education (PNE). However, pain management strategies developed by clinicians in one culture may not necessarily be understood, appropriate, or effective in another culture2 Methods: This study is part of a broader research in the development of culturally sensitive pain neuroscience education for the Lebanese population. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to first gain an in-depth understanding of the Lebanese physiotherapists' perceptions towards the management of chronic low back pain as well as the knowledge regarding PNE. A qualitative one-to-one semi-structured interviews with 10 practicing physical therapists were conducted. The transcribed text from the interviews was analyzed using inductive thematic analysis. Results: Several themes were generated, identified, and constructed by the researchers: (1) physiotherapists use of a biomechanical approach. (2) Poor knowledge about the bio-psychosocial approach or PNE. (3) Barrier and facilitation for the implementation of PNE. Discussion: The preliminary results showed a limited knowledge of the bio-psychosocial approach, or PNE, and that the Lebanese physical therapist use more a biomechanical approach in the treatment and assessment of people with chronic low back pain. Process evaluation: The results showed that training is needed for physiotherapists to deliver a broader model of care, and that future research should focus on developing a culturally sensitive PNE material. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]