Towards a core outcome set for dysarthria after stroke: What should we measure?

IF 2.6 3区 医学 Q1 REHABILITATION Clinical Rehabilitation Pub Date : 2024-06-01 Epub Date: 2024-02-19 DOI:10.1177/02692155241231929
Claire Mitchell, Kate Woodward-Nutt, Annette Dancer, Stephen Taylor, Joe Bugler, Audrey Bowen, Paul Conroy, Brooke-Mai Whelan, Sarah J Wallace, Sabrina El Kouaissi, Jamie Kirkham
{"title":"Towards a core outcome set for dysarthria after stroke: What should we measure?","authors":"Claire Mitchell, Kate Woodward-Nutt, Annette Dancer, Stephen Taylor, Joe Bugler, Audrey Bowen, Paul Conroy, Brooke-Mai Whelan, Sarah J Wallace, Sabrina El Kouaissi, Jamie Kirkham","doi":"10.1177/02692155241231929","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To identify and agree on what outcome domains should be measured in research and clinical practice when working with stroke survivors who have dysarthria.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Delphi process, two rounds of an online survey followed by two online consensus meetings.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>UK and Australia.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>Stroke survivors with experience of dysarthria, speech and language therapists/pathologists working in stroke and communication researchers.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Initial list of outcome domains generated from existing literature and with our patient and public involvement group to develop the survey. Participants completed two rounds of this survey to rate importance. Outcomes were identified as 'in', 'unclear' or 'out' from the second survey. All participants were invited to two consensus meetings to discuss these results followed by voting to identify critically important outcome domains for a future Core Outcome Set. All outcomes were voted on in the consensus meetings and included if 70% of meeting participants voted 'yes' for critically important.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 148 surveys were fully completed, and 28 participants attended the consensus meetings. A core outcome set for dysarthria after stroke should include four outcome domains: (a) intelligibility of speech, (b) ability to participate in conversations, (c) living well with dysarthria, (d) skills and knowledge of communication partners (where relevant).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We describe the consensus of 'what' speech outcomes after stroke are valued by all stakeholders including those with lived experience. We share these findings to encourage the measurement of these domains in clinical practice and research and for future research to identify 'how' best to measure these outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":10441,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Rehabilitation","volume":" ","pages":"802-810"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11059832/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Rehabilitation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/02692155241231929","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/2/19 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To identify and agree on what outcome domains should be measured in research and clinical practice when working with stroke survivors who have dysarthria.

Design: Delphi process, two rounds of an online survey followed by two online consensus meetings.

Setting: UK and Australia.

Participants: Stroke survivors with experience of dysarthria, speech and language therapists/pathologists working in stroke and communication researchers.

Methods: Initial list of outcome domains generated from existing literature and with our patient and public involvement group to develop the survey. Participants completed two rounds of this survey to rate importance. Outcomes were identified as 'in', 'unclear' or 'out' from the second survey. All participants were invited to two consensus meetings to discuss these results followed by voting to identify critically important outcome domains for a future Core Outcome Set. All outcomes were voted on in the consensus meetings and included if 70% of meeting participants voted 'yes' for critically important.

Results: In total, 148 surveys were fully completed, and 28 participants attended the consensus meetings. A core outcome set for dysarthria after stroke should include four outcome domains: (a) intelligibility of speech, (b) ability to participate in conversations, (c) living well with dysarthria, (d) skills and knowledge of communication partners (where relevant).

Conclusions: We describe the consensus of 'what' speech outcomes after stroke are valued by all stakeholders including those with lived experience. We share these findings to encourage the measurement of these domains in clinical practice and research and for future research to identify 'how' best to measure these outcomes.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
制定脑卒中后构音障碍的核心结果集:我们应该测量什么?
目的确定并商定在研究和临床实践中对有构音障碍的中风幸存者进行治疗时应测量哪些结果领域:设计:德尔菲法(Delphi process),先进行两轮在线调查,然后召开两次在线共识会议:地点:英国和澳大利亚:参与者:有构音障碍经历的中风幸存者、从事中风工作的言语和语言治疗师/病理学家以及交流研究人员:方法:根据现有文献和我们的患者与公众参与小组制定的初步结果领域清单进行调查。参与者完成两轮调查,对重要性进行评分。在第二轮调查中,结果被确定为 "符合"、"不明确 "或 "不符合"。所有参与者都被邀请参加两次共识会议,讨论这些结果,然后进行投票,为未来的核心结果集确定极其重要的结果领域。所有结果都在共识会议上进行了投票,如果有 70% 的与会者对 "至关重要 "投了 "赞成 "票,则所有结果都将被纳入其中:共有 148 份调查问卷全部完成,28 位参与者参加了共识会议。脑卒中后构音障碍的核心结果集应包括四个结果领域:(a) 语言清晰度,(b) 参与对话的能力,(c) 在构音障碍情况下的良好生活,(d) 沟通伙伴的技能和知识(如相关):结论:我们描述了所有利益相关者(包括有生活经验者)对中风后 "哪些 "言语结果的共识。我们分享这些研究结果是为了鼓励在临床实践和研究中对这些领域进行测量,并在未来的研究中确定 "如何 "最好地测量这些结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Clinical Rehabilitation
Clinical Rehabilitation 医学-康复医学
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
6.70%
发文量
117
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Clinical Rehabilitation covering the whole field of disability and rehabilitation, this peer-reviewed journal publishes research and discussion articles and acts as a forum for the international dissemination and exchange of information amongst the large number of professionals involved in rehabilitation. This journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)
期刊最新文献
"Together is no longer completely together": Exploring the influence of social cognition problems on partner relationships following acquired brain injury. Kinesophobia in patients with osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures: a latent profile analysis. Cardiac Rehabilitation for Persons with Stroke: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis. The association between ambiguity tolerance and psychological well-being among physical therapists engaged in geriatric rehabilitation: A multicentre collaborative cross-sectional study. Letter to the Editor: "Effect of a Transitional Tele-Rehabilitation Programme on Quality of Life of Adult Burn Survivors: A Randomised Controlled Trial".
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1