Search

Background: Early identification and intervention for hearing loss is important for supporting language development. Despite this, parents are required to overcome barriers to access hearing assessments for their children. Aims: To identify the enablers and barriers to accessing hearing assessments for Australian children identified by their parents, and to compare between metropolitan, regional and rural areas. Methods & Procedures: This sequential, explanatory mixed‐methods study was undertaken online and included participants in metropolitan, regional and rural area of Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Western Australia and the Northern Territory. A total of 56 participants participated in the surveys, and 10 participated in semi‐structured interviews. Outcomes & Results: Participants in metropolitan areas were more likely to have services in their area; however, access to hearing assessment was related more to individual circumstances (including health literacy skills) rather than geographical location. Many participants experienced long wait times, reduced flexibility, and a lack of audiologists experienced in working with children. Conclusions & Implications: Barriers to hearing assessments (which assist with early identification and intervention for hearing loss) should be addressed so that children have access to clear auditory information to assist with their speech and language development. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: What is already known on the subject: Poor audiological input can lead to poor speech, language and literacy outcomes for children. What this paper adds to the existing knowledge: Although previous research indicates that people in regional and remote locations experience difficulty accessing health services within a reasonable timeframe, in this study barriers were experienced regardless of geographical location, and were dependent on individual circumstances. Many parents are unaware of the impact of hearing on speech and language. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work?: Further research might examine how health literacy affects access to hearing assessment. Parents shared several potential solutions to these access barriers which should be considered by service providers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Evidence indicates that assistance dogs placed in the home are effective in supporting individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) by increasing social and community participation and promoting quality of life. This study aimed to examine the outcomes of assistance dog placement on quality of life, independence, and participation of families including individuals with ASD placed with an assistance dog compared to families on the waiting list for an autism assistance dog and to evaluate the feasibility of the design for future studies. Methods: A cross‐sectional comparative study was conducted. The Adaptive Behaviour Analysis System, Social Responsiveness Scale, Autism Treatment Evaluation Checklist, Canadian Occupational Performance Measure, and Autism Family Experience Questionnaire were used to evaluate adaptive skills, behaviour, social difficulties, daily functioning, and family quality of life. Results: Six families who had an autism assistance dog placed with them, and 12 families who were on the waiting list were recruited using purposeful sampling. The pilot data found no significant differences between the two groups. However, trends were observed which suggested that assistance dogs can increase desired social behaviours, decrease ASD severity, and improve family wellbeing. For families with an assistance dog, more positive outcomes were observed for families who were partnered with an assistance dog for longer. Parents (and sometimes individuals with ASD) were able to complete and return the outcome measures via mail to collect the outcome data for the study. Conclusion: These study findings add to the developing evidence about the use of assistance dogs with this population. A larger sample size may have allowed for significant associations to be detected. The methods used were feasible to be applied in a larger study. These results may assist health professionals advocate for funding for assistance dog placement to individuals with ASD and their families. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: This evaluation considered the potential of We‐Yarn, a suicide prevention gatekeeper training workshop, to contribute to Aboriginal suicide prevention in rural New South Wales. Design: A mixed methods approach included surveys, in‐depth interviews and workshop observations. Setting: Aboriginal suicide prevention training in rural New South Wales, Australia. Participants: Attendees at We‐Yarn training. Intervention: We‐Yarn provided culturally safe suicide prevention skills training for Aboriginal people and for those who work with Aboriginal communities and persons in rural New South Wales. Training workshops were delivered across multiple locations for 6 hours in one day. Workshops were facilitated by two facilitators with lived and professional experience; one Aboriginal and one non‐Aboriginal facilitator. We‐Yarn content was developed by staff from the Centre for Rural and Remote Mental Health, and in consultation with Aboriginal Elders and representatives of Aboriginal Medical Services to ensure relevance and cultural appropriateness. Main outcome measures: Pre and post‐workshop surveys captured capacity and participants' confidence in identifying and responding to a person at risk of suicide. Interviews explored participants' experiences of workshops, implementation of learning, and attitudes regarding social and emotional wellbeing and suicide. Observations detailed the workshop environment, participants' engagement, and participants' responses to facilitators and content. Results: We‐Yarn was considered culturally appropriate. Participants responded to facilitators' lived experiences. Participants reported significant improvements in understanding the links between cultural strengths, social and emotional wellbeing and suicide prevention. However, health professionals with existing knowledge wanted a stronger focus on clinical training. Conclusion: We‐Yarn promoted discussion of suicide prevention within a holistic health framework, building on participants' pre‐existing knowledge about social and emotional wellbeing. Importantly, skilful facilitators with lived experience were vital to the success of the workshops. Consideration should be given to attracting people with low suicide prevention knowledge to the workshops, developing tailored workshops for health professionals and ensuring prolonged engagement with communities. Multifaceted and long term responses in addition to this type of training are important. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]