什么是“好的”神经心理学评估?对服务使用者和专业利益相关者观点的评估

Q4 Psychology Clinical Psychology Forum Pub Date : 2023-06-01 DOI:10.53841/bpscpf.2023.1.365.24
Oliver Baldwin, Amy Breed, Jennifer Grayling, Ammara Haque, Derval McCormack, Abigail Methley, Sarah Yates, Lorraine King
{"title":"什么是“好的”神经心理学评估?对服务使用者和专业利益相关者观点的评估","authors":"Oliver Baldwin, Amy Breed, Jennifer Grayling, Ammara Haque, Derval McCormack, Abigail Methley, Sarah Yates, Lorraine King","doi":"10.53841/bpscpf.2023.1.365.24","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background Neuropsychological assessment enables clinicians to use standardised tools and systemic formulation approaches to assess cognition and provide targeted psycho-education and rehabilitative input. The research literature is currently limited regarding the perspectives of different stakeholders on the neuropsychological assessment experience, and resulting reports. Aims This paper explores what professional stakeholders consider to be a ‘good’ neuropsychological assessment/what is important to them, and examines service user experiences of neuropsychological assessment within a neuropsychology outpatient service. Method A small-scale service evaluation project comprised an online survey completed by 17 professionals who receive neuropsychological report from this service. A semi-structured schedule was used to guide telephone interviews with nine service users who had recently experienced a neuropsychological assessment. Results Both professional stakeholder surveys and service user telephone interviews provided feedback regarding what they found helpful and unhelpful in neuropsychological assessments, and suggested areas for improvement including: provision of an information booklet, offering a choice of remote or in-person appointments, and offering follow-up appointments after the assessment. Discussion Reeommendations are made for service improvements, and for future larger-scale research projects within this subject area.","PeriodicalId":39686,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Psychology Forum","volume":"22 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"What makes a ‘good’ neuropsychological assessment? An evaluation of service user and professional stakeholder perspectives\",\"authors\":\"Oliver Baldwin, Amy Breed, Jennifer Grayling, Ammara Haque, Derval McCormack, Abigail Methley, Sarah Yates, Lorraine King\",\"doi\":\"10.53841/bpscpf.2023.1.365.24\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background Neuropsychological assessment enables clinicians to use standardised tools and systemic formulation approaches to assess cognition and provide targeted psycho-education and rehabilitative input. The research literature is currently limited regarding the perspectives of different stakeholders on the neuropsychological assessment experience, and resulting reports. Aims This paper explores what professional stakeholders consider to be a ‘good’ neuropsychological assessment/what is important to them, and examines service user experiences of neuropsychological assessment within a neuropsychology outpatient service. Method A small-scale service evaluation project comprised an online survey completed by 17 professionals who receive neuropsychological report from this service. A semi-structured schedule was used to guide telephone interviews with nine service users who had recently experienced a neuropsychological assessment. Results Both professional stakeholder surveys and service user telephone interviews provided feedback regarding what they found helpful and unhelpful in neuropsychological assessments, and suggested areas for improvement including: provision of an information booklet, offering a choice of remote or in-person appointments, and offering follow-up appointments after the assessment. Discussion Reeommendations are made for service improvements, and for future larger-scale research projects within this subject area.\",\"PeriodicalId\":39686,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Psychology Forum\",\"volume\":\"22 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Psychology Forum\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.53841/bpscpf.2023.1.365.24\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Psychology\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Psychology Forum","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.53841/bpscpf.2023.1.365.24","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Psychology","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

神经心理学评估使临床医生能够使用标准化的工具和系统的制定方法来评估认知,并提供有针对性的心理教育和康复输入。研究文献目前是有限的,关于不同利益相关者对神经心理学评估经验的观点,以及由此产生的报告。本文探讨了专业利益相关者认为什么是“好的”神经心理评估/对他们来说什么是重要的,并检查了神经心理门诊服务中神经心理评估的服务用户体验。方法采用小型服务评估项目,由17名接受该服务神经心理学报告的专业人员完成在线调查。一份半结构化的时间表被用来指导对9名最近接受过神经心理学评估的服务使用者的电话采访。结果专业利益相关者调查和服务用户电话访谈均反馈了他们对神经心理评估的帮助和不足之处,并建议改进的领域包括:提供信息小册子,提供远程或现场预约选择,以及在评估后提供随访预约。讨论提出建议,以改善服务,并为未来更大规模的研究项目在这个主题领域。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
What makes a ‘good’ neuropsychological assessment? An evaluation of service user and professional stakeholder perspectives
Background Neuropsychological assessment enables clinicians to use standardised tools and systemic formulation approaches to assess cognition and provide targeted psycho-education and rehabilitative input. The research literature is currently limited regarding the perspectives of different stakeholders on the neuropsychological assessment experience, and resulting reports. Aims This paper explores what professional stakeholders consider to be a ‘good’ neuropsychological assessment/what is important to them, and examines service user experiences of neuropsychological assessment within a neuropsychology outpatient service. Method A small-scale service evaluation project comprised an online survey completed by 17 professionals who receive neuropsychological report from this service. A semi-structured schedule was used to guide telephone interviews with nine service users who had recently experienced a neuropsychological assessment. Results Both professional stakeholder surveys and service user telephone interviews provided feedback regarding what they found helpful and unhelpful in neuropsychological assessments, and suggested areas for improvement including: provision of an information booklet, offering a choice of remote or in-person appointments, and offering follow-up appointments after the assessment. Discussion Reeommendations are made for service improvements, and for future larger-scale research projects within this subject area.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Clinical Psychology Forum
Clinical Psychology Forum Psychology-Clinical Psychology
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Service evaluation of reflective parenting groups: What are parents’ perspectives on the usefulness of RP groups in improving parental mentalisation and reflective functioning? A service evaluation exploring ethnic monitoring in a Specialist Perinatal Mental Health service: Barriers and improvement opportunities Building families through MAR (medically assisted reproduction), donor conception and surrogacy: Where does this fit into clinical psychology? Learning from reflection – good practice in handover with neurodiverse clients Racialised minority women’s experiences of psychological intervention across perinatal and maternal mental health services
×
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