{"title":"What Impacts What: Clinicians' Perspectives of Causality in Aphasia Rehabilitation.","authors":"Nichol Castro, Sameer A Ashaie","doi":"10.1044/2024_AJSLP-24-00174","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Determining the prognosis of aphasia recovery is an important task for clinicians in the rehabilitation of persons with aphasia. Although there are many variables identified as impactful to aphasia recovery, it is less clear (a) how clinicians perceive causality in aphasia rehabilitation and (b) how prognostic variables interact with each other. This study aimed to understand causal relations between prognostic variables from the clinician perspective.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Ratings of perceived causality were obtained from 11 clinicians serving people with aphasia. Participants were presented with 255 directed causal relations (e.g., depression → aphasia severity), representing a total of 18 demographic, diagnostic, and psychosocial variables. Participants rated the perceived causality on a Likert scale from 0 (<i>no causal effect</i>) to 10 (<i>strong causal effect</i>). We also obtained ratings about frequency of access to information about each of the 18 variables.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A perceived causal network showed differences among variables in their perceived causality. There were many causal relations identified, particularly between diagnostic and psychosocial variables. The variables with the strongest perceived causality were predominantly psychosocial variables, including depression, social support, and participation. However, these psychosocial variables were also the variables that clinicians had the least frequent access to information about. There were also notable differences between participants in their perceived causal networks.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Clinicians hold valuable information about aphasia rehabilitation, including what variables are important to aphasia recovery. Understanding the complexity of interaction among prognostic variables and obtaining data from clinicians about prognostic variables and causality will advance the rehabilitation of aphasia.</p><p><strong>Supplemental material: </strong>https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.27105865.</p>","PeriodicalId":49240,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1044/2024_AJSLP-24-00174","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/10/7 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose: Determining the prognosis of aphasia recovery is an important task for clinicians in the rehabilitation of persons with aphasia. Although there are many variables identified as impactful to aphasia recovery, it is less clear (a) how clinicians perceive causality in aphasia rehabilitation and (b) how prognostic variables interact with each other. This study aimed to understand causal relations between prognostic variables from the clinician perspective.
Method: Ratings of perceived causality were obtained from 11 clinicians serving people with aphasia. Participants were presented with 255 directed causal relations (e.g., depression → aphasia severity), representing a total of 18 demographic, diagnostic, and psychosocial variables. Participants rated the perceived causality on a Likert scale from 0 (no causal effect) to 10 (strong causal effect). We also obtained ratings about frequency of access to information about each of the 18 variables.
Results: A perceived causal network showed differences among variables in their perceived causality. There were many causal relations identified, particularly between diagnostic and psychosocial variables. The variables with the strongest perceived causality were predominantly psychosocial variables, including depression, social support, and participation. However, these psychosocial variables were also the variables that clinicians had the least frequent access to information about. There were also notable differences between participants in their perceived causal networks.
Conclusions: Clinicians hold valuable information about aphasia rehabilitation, including what variables are important to aphasia recovery. Understanding the complexity of interaction among prognostic variables and obtaining data from clinicians about prognostic variables and causality will advance the rehabilitation of aphasia.
期刊介绍：
Mission: AJSLP publishes peer-reviewed research and other scholarly articles on all aspects of clinical practice in speech-language pathology. The journal is an international outlet for clinical research pertaining to screening, detection, diagnosis, management, and outcomes of communication and swallowing disorders across the lifespan as well as the etiologies and characteristics of these disorders. Because of its clinical orientation, the journal disseminates research findings applicable to diverse aspects of clinical practice in speech-language pathology. AJSLP seeks to advance evidence-based practice by disseminating the results of new studies as well as providing a forum for critical reviews and meta-analyses of previously published work.
Scope: The broad field of speech-language pathology, including aphasia; apraxia of speech and childhood apraxia of speech; aural rehabilitation; augmentative and alternative communication; cognitive impairment; craniofacial disorders; dysarthria; fluency disorders; language disorders in children; speech sound disorders; swallowing, dysphagia, and feeding disorders; and voice disorders.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
