Measuring successful conversations in couples with and without aphasia: A scoping review

IF 1.5 3区 医学 Q2 AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders Pub Date : 2024-08-16 DOI:10.1111/1460-6984.13098
Annette Rotherham, Kirstine Shrubsole, Claire Croteau, Katerina Hilari, Helen Wallace, Sarah J. Wallace
{"title":"Measuring successful conversations in couples with and without aphasia: A scoping review","authors":"Annette Rotherham,&nbsp;Kirstine Shrubsole,&nbsp;Claire Croteau,&nbsp;Katerina Hilari,&nbsp;Helen Wallace,&nbsp;Sarah J. Wallace","doi":"10.1111/1460-6984.13098","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Aphasia impacts communication and relationships. While counselling is increasingly recognised as a component of the speech-language therapy role, the success of conversation partner training is typically measured in terms of communication alone. This scoping review aimed to describe how successful conversation is currently measured with couples—with and without aphasia, to inform the development of an ecologically valid measure for couples with aphasia.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods and Procedures</h3>\n \n <p>The scoping review was reported in alignment with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Extensions for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-SCR). MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsycINFO databases were searched for conversation treatment studies for couples with and without aphasia. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were extracted from included studies and screened against the three-tier model of situated language to shortlist those that measure everyday communication. Items within shortlisted PROMs were further described using the refined International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health linking rules.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Following screening and full-text review, 46 studies were included, consisting of 24 studies conducted with couples with aphasia and 22 studies conducted with couples without aphasia. For couples with aphasia, 13 PROMs were identified that measured everyday communication. Of these, 23% were dyadic (i.e., measured from the perspectives of both members of the couple); however, they usually only appraised the communication behaviours of the person with aphasia. For couples without aphasia, eight PROMs were identified that measured everyday communication; all were dyadic and measured both attitudes and communication behaviours of both partners.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>Conversation relies on the interaction of two people, and success in conversation is best rated by those having the conversation. The use of PROMs is recommended as part of person and relationship-centred practice; however, there is currently no validated PROM for conversation in aphasia that considers the perspectives and behaviours of both the person with aphasia and their communication partner. The PROM items identified in this study will form the basis of future research to develop a PROM for couples' conversations in aphasia.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS</h3>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> What is already known on the subject</h3>\n \n <div>\n <ul>\n \n <li>Communication partner training (CPT) for couples, where one person has aphasia, can improve conversation skills and enhance relationships. Clinician-rated measures, such as conversation analysis, have been used to measure the outcomes of CPT. However, there is a lack of person-centred or self-rated outcome measurement instruments. that is, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for couples' conversations in aphasia.</li>\n </ul>\n </div>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> What this paper adds to existing knowledge</h3>\n \n <div>\n <ul>\n \n <li>We have identified outcome measurement instruments used in conversation treatment studies for couples with and without aphasia. We found that most PROMs used in aphasia treatment studies were not dyadic, that is, they did not include the self-report of both communication partners. In contrast, the PROMs used with couples without aphasia were dyadic and contained items that measured a more complex range of both partners' emotions, behaviours and attitudes.</li>\n </ul>\n </div>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work?</h3>\n \n <div>\n <ul>\n \n <li>This study provides insights into the content and characteristics of PROMs for couples' conversation therapy and may assist clinicians in selecting outcome measurement instruments in their practice.</li>\n </ul>\n </div>\n </section>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":49182,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders","volume":"59 6","pages":"2554-2579"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1460-6984.13098","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1460-6984.13098","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Aphasia impacts communication and relationships. While counselling is increasingly recognised as a component of the speech-language therapy role, the success of conversation partner training is typically measured in terms of communication alone. This scoping review aimed to describe how successful conversation is currently measured with couples—with and without aphasia, to inform the development of an ecologically valid measure for couples with aphasia.

Methods and Procedures

The scoping review was reported in alignment with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Extensions for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-SCR). MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsycINFO databases were searched for conversation treatment studies for couples with and without aphasia. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were extracted from included studies and screened against the three-tier model of situated language to shortlist those that measure everyday communication. Items within shortlisted PROMs were further described using the refined International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health linking rules.

Results

Following screening and full-text review, 46 studies were included, consisting of 24 studies conducted with couples with aphasia and 22 studies conducted with couples without aphasia. For couples with aphasia, 13 PROMs were identified that measured everyday communication. Of these, 23% were dyadic (i.e., measured from the perspectives of both members of the couple); however, they usually only appraised the communication behaviours of the person with aphasia. For couples without aphasia, eight PROMs were identified that measured everyday communication; all were dyadic and measured both attitudes and communication behaviours of both partners.

Conclusion

Conversation relies on the interaction of two people, and success in conversation is best rated by those having the conversation. The use of PROMs is recommended as part of person and relationship-centred practice; however, there is currently no validated PROM for conversation in aphasia that considers the perspectives and behaviours of both the person with aphasia and their communication partner. The PROM items identified in this study will form the basis of future research to develop a PROM for couples' conversations in aphasia.

WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS

What is already known on the subject

  • Communication partner training (CPT) for couples, where one person has aphasia, can improve conversation skills and enhance relationships. Clinician-rated measures, such as conversation analysis, have been used to measure the outcomes of CPT. However, there is a lack of person-centred or self-rated outcome measurement instruments. that is, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for couples' conversations in aphasia.

What this paper adds to existing knowledge

  • We have identified outcome measurement instruments used in conversation treatment studies for couples with and without aphasia. We found that most PROMs used in aphasia treatment studies were not dyadic, that is, they did not include the self-report of both communication partners. In contrast, the PROMs used with couples without aphasia were dyadic and contained items that measured a more complex range of both partners' emotions, behaviours and attitudes.

What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work?

  • This study provides insights into the content and characteristics of PROMs for couples' conversation therapy and may assist clinicians in selecting outcome measurement instruments in their practice.

Abstract Image

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
衡量有无失语症夫妇的成功对话:范围界定综述。
背景介绍失语症影响交流和人际关系。虽然咨询越来越被视为言语治疗的一个组成部分,但对话伙伴训练的成功与否通常仅以沟通能力来衡量。本范围界定综述旨在描述目前是如何衡量有无失语症夫妇的成功会话的,从而为开发适用于失语症夫妇的生态有效测量方法提供信息:范围界定综述按照《范围界定综述的系统综述和元分析扩展首选报告项目》(Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Extensions for Scoping Reviews,PRISMA-SCR)进行报告。在 MEDLINE、EMBASE、CINAHL 和 PsycINFO 数据库中检索了针对患有或未患有失语症的夫妇的谈话治疗研究。从纳入的研究中提取了患者报告的结果测量指标(PROMs),并根据情景语言的三层模型进行筛选,最终筛选出能够测量日常交流的结果测量指标。入围的 PROMs 中的项目使用改进后的《国际功能、残疾和健康分类》链接规则进行了进一步描述:经过筛选和全文审阅,共纳入 46 项研究,其中 24 项研究的对象是患有失语症的夫妇,22 项研究的对象是未患有失语症的夫妇。对于有失语症的夫妇,共发现了 13 项测量日常交流的 PROMs。其中,23%的PROM是双向的(即从夫妻双方的角度进行测量);但是,这些PROM通常只对失语者的交流行为进行评估。对于没有失语症的夫妇,研究发现有 8 项 PROMs 可以测量日常交流;所有 PROMs 都是双向的,可以测量夫妇双方的态度和交流行为:结论:交谈依赖于两个人之间的互动,交谈成功与否最好由交谈者来评价。建议使用 PROM 作为以人为本和以人际关系为中心的实践的一部分;然而,目前还没有经过验证的针对失语症患者对话的 PROM,能够同时考虑到失语症患者及其交流伙伴的观点和行为。本研究中确定的 PROM 项目将成为未来研究的基础,以开发适用于失语症患者夫妻对话的 PROM:关于该主题的已知内容 对一方患有失语症的夫妇进行交流伙伴训练(CPT)可以提高对话技巧,增进夫妻关系。临床医生评定的措施,如对话分析,已被用于衡量 CPT 的成果。然而,目前还缺乏以人为本或自我评价的结果测量工具,即针对失语症夫妻对话的患者报告结果测量工具(PROMs)。本文对现有知识的补充 我们已经确定了针对患有和未患有失语症的夫妇的对话治疗研究中使用的结果测量工具。我们发现,在失语症治疗研究中使用的大多数 PROM 都不是双向的,也就是说,它们不包括交流双方的自我报告。与此相反,用于无失语症夫妇的 PROM 是双向的,其中包含的项目可以测量伴侣双方更复杂的情绪、行为和态度。这项工作有哪些潜在或实际的临床意义?本研究为夫妻对话治疗的 PROMs 内容和特点提供了见解,可帮助临床医生在实践中选择结果测量工具。
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
International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders
International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY-REHABILITATION
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
12.50%
发文量
116
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders (IJLCD) is the official journal of the Royal College of Speech & Language Therapists. The Journal welcomes submissions on all aspects of speech, language, communication disorders and speech and language therapy. It provides a forum for the exchange of information and discussion of issues of clinical or theoretical relevance in the above areas.
期刊最新文献
Assessment and treatment of gesture in neurogenic communication disorders: An international survey of practice. Validity and reliability of the revised scale of avoidance and struggle behaviours in stuttering (r-SASBS). A systematic review of evidence relating to the use of telesupervision for speech-language pathology students on clinical placements. How speech and language therapists and parents work together in the therapeutic process for children with speech sound disorder: A scoping review. Microstructure competences and grammatical errors of Danish-speaking children with developmental language disorder when telling and retelling narratives and engaging in spontaneous language.
×
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