What do speech-language pathologists describe as most important when trying to achieve client participation during aphasia rehabilitation? A qualitative focus group interview study

'A Meaningful Difference, but Not Ultimately the Difference I Would Want': A Mixed-Methods Approach to Explore and Benchmark Clinically Meaningful Changes in Aphasia Recovery

INTRODUCTION

Outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) are used to gauge the effects of treatment. In post-stroke aphasia rehabilitation, benchmarks for meaningful change are needed to support the interpretation of patient outcomes. This study is part of a research programme to establish minimal important change (MIC) values (the smallest change above which patients perceive themselves as importantly changed) for core OMIs. As a first step in this process, the views of people with aphasia and clinicians were explored, and consensus was sought on a threshold for clinically meaningful change.

METHODS

Sequential mixed-methods design was employed. Participants included people with post-stroke aphasia and speech pathologists. People with aphasia were purposively sampled based on time post-stroke, age and gender, whereas speech pathologists were sampled according to their work setting (hospital or community). Each participant attended a focus group followed by a consensus workshop with a survey component. Within the focus groups, experiences and methods for measuring meaningful change during aphasia recovery were explored. Qualitative data were transcribed and analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. In the consensus workshop, participants voted on thresholds for meaningful change in core outcome constructs of language, communication, emotional well-being and quality of life, using a six-point rating scale (much worse, slightly worse, no change, slightly improved, much improved and completely recovered). Consensus was defined a priori as 70% agreement. Voting results were reported using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

Five people with aphasia (n = 4, > 6 months after stroke; n = 5, < 65 years; n = 3, males) and eight speech pathologists (n = 4, hospital setting; n = 4, community setting) participated in one of four focus groups (duration: 92-112 min). Four themes were identified describing meaningful change as follows: (1) different for every single person; (2) small continuous improvements; (3) measured by progress towards personally relevant goals; and (4) influenced by personal factors. 'Slightly improved' was agreed as the threshold of MIC on the anchor-rating scale (75%-92%) within 6 months of stroke, whereas after 6 months there was a trend towards supporting 'much improved' (36%-66%).

CONCLUSION

Our mixed-methods research with people with aphasia and speech pathologists provides novel evidence to inform the definition of MIC in aphasia rehabilitation. Future research will aim to establish MIC values for core OMIs.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

This work is the result of engagement between people with lived experience of post-stroke aphasia, including people with aphasia, family members, clinicians and researchers. Engagement across the research cycle was sought to ensure that the research tasks were acceptable and easily understood by participants and that the outcomes of the study were relevant to the aphasia community. This engagement included the co-development of a plain English summary of the results. Advisors were remunerated in accordance with Health Consumers Queensland guidelines. Interview guides for clinicians were piloted by speech pathologists working in aphasia rehabilitation.

Person-centered care for people with aphasia: tools for shared decision-making

Shared decision-making is a fundamental aspect of person-centered care, and can and should be part of many different aspects of the rehabilitation process. Communication disabilities like aphasia, which affects people's ability to use and understand spoken and written language, can make shared decision-making especially challenging to the resources and skills of rehabilitation practitioners. The purpose of this narrative review is to provide a comprehensive description of tools that can support successful shared decision-making with people with aphasia in the rehabilitation environment. These tools and strategies are appropriate for use by physicians, nurses, social workers, physical therapists (also referred to as physiotherapists), occupational therapists, and other service or care providers. The important role of speech-language pathologists as consultants is also described. Case scenarios throughout the paper illustrate the application of recommended tools and strategies along with best practices.

Motivation in Aphasia Treatment: Self-Determination Theory Applied to the FOURC Model

PURPOSE

Although the importance of motivation to successful rehabilitation is frequently acknowledged in the aphasia literature, little evidence-based guidance has been provided on how to support it. The purpose of this tutorial is to introduce a well-validated theory of motivation, self-determination theory (SDT); explain its role as the foundation for the FOURC model of collaborative goal setting and treatment planning; and explain how it may be applied during rehabilitation to support the motivation of people with aphasia.

METHOD

We provide an overview of SDT, explore the link between motivation and psychological wellness, and discuss how psychological needs are addressed in SDT and the FOURC model. Concrete examples from aphasia therapy are used to illustrate main concepts.

CONCLUSIONS

SDT offers tangible guidance for supporting motivation and wellness. SDT-based practices support positive forms of motivation, which is one of the targets of FOURC. An understanding of SDT's theoretical foundation will help clinicians maximize the impact of collaborative goal setting and aphasia therapy more generally.

"Fluctuation is the norm": Rehabilitation practitioner perspectives on ambiguity and uncertainty in their work with persons in disordered states of consciousness after traumatic brain injury

The purpose of this study is to describe the clinical lifeworld of rehabilitation practitioners who work with patients in disordered states of consciousness (DoC) after severe traumatic brain injury (TBI). We interviewed 21 practitioners using narrative interviewing methods from two specialty health systems that admit patients in DoC to inpatient rehabilitation. The overarching theme arising from the interview data is "Experiencing ambiguity and uncertainty in clinical reasoning about consciousness" when treating persons in DoC. We describe practitioners' practices of looking for consistency, making sense of ambiguous and hard to explain patient responses, and using trial and error or "tinkering" to care for patients. Due to scientific uncertainty about diagnosis and prognosis in DoC and ambiguity about interpretation of patient responses, working in the field of DoC disrupts the canonical meaning-making processes that practitioners have been trained in. Studying the lifeworld of rehabilitation practitioners through their story-making and story-telling uncovers taken-for-granted assumptions and normative structures that may exist in rehabilitation medical and scientific culture, including practitioner training. We are interested in understanding these canonical breaches in order to make visible how practitioners make meaning while treating patients.

Why allied health professionals use evidence-based clinical guidelines in stroke rehabilitation: A systematic review and meta-synthesis of qualitative studies

OBJECTIVE

To capture qualitative research about the perspectives and reasoning of allied health professionals about variability in the use of clinical guidelines in stroke rehabilitation.

DATA SOURCES

Ovid Medline, Psychinfo, Cochrane, Ovid Emcare, Scopus and Web of Science.

METHOD

The review protocol followed the Enhancing Transparency in Reporting the Synthesis of Qualitative Research (ENTREQ) statement. Qualitative or mixed methods research that provided qualitative data about use of clinical guidelines delivered by allied health professionals in stroke rehabilitation was included. Clinical guidelines included any evidence-based documents that guided allied health stroke rehabilitation practice. All studies were screened in duplicate at title and abstract and then at full text. Included studies were appraised using the McMaster Critical Appraisal Tool.

RESULTS

Data from 850 allied health professionals in 22 qualitative research studies from seven different countries were analysed and synthesised. Four themes were developed including: context necessitates strategy, all clients are different, systemic changes are needed and need a good reason to change something. The findings aligned with the four arms of evidence-base practice. Allied health professionals use clinical guidelines when they align with their reasoning and match the 'sweet spot' for client goals and circumstance. Clinical guideline use is attributed to sufficient resourcing, time and motivation and a strong research culture within health systems.

CONCLUSIONS

Variabilities in clinical guideline use by allied health professionals are due to their clinical reasoning, contextual factors, client characteristics and enabling health systems.