为智力和发育障碍人士改编吸烟功能评估方法

IF 2.1 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL Behavior Analysis in Practice Pub Date : 2024-07-22 DOI:10.1007/s40617-024-00958-6
Sean D. Regnier, Lindsey C. Mullis, Austin Nugent, Trenton Marcum, Morgan Turner, Jonathan A. Schulz, Joshua Lile, Thomas Shellenberg, William W. Stoops
{"title":"为智力和发育障碍人士改编吸烟功能评估方法","authors":"Sean D. Regnier, Lindsey C. Mullis, Austin Nugent, Trenton Marcum, Morgan Turner, Jonathan A. Schulz, Joshua Lile, Thomas Shellenberg, William W. Stoops","doi":"10.1007/s40617-024-00958-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>There is a concerning lack of published smoking cessation research on people with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD). A Functional Assessment for Smoking Treatment Recommendations (FASTR) was recently developed to help personalize patients’ tobacco treatment. Adapting this tool to effectively identify putative environmental variables that maintain smoking for people with IDD is predicted to improve current treatments. The purpose of this study was to pilot the FASTR with people with IDD to understand modifications necessary to implement it in this population. During 1-hour interviews participants (<i>n</i> = 8) described the extent they agreed with each FASTR statement using a Likert scale, corresponding to one of five potential functions of smoking (i.e., Automatic Positive, Automatic Negative, Social Positive, Social Negative, and Antecedent). Participants gave input on potential modifications to make the assessment more inclusive for people with IDD. A quantitative approach was used to pilot the FASTR and participant narratives were used to understand difficulties and potential modifications. For each participant a function was endorsed if the average response to questions corresponding to that function was greater than 3 (neutral) or over 50% “yes” responses. The two most frequently endorsed functions were Automatic Negative (87.5% participants) and Social Negative (75% of participants). Participants recommended making the focus of each statement larger and in bold so respondents can understand the most important part of the statement. The FASTR was modified based on their feedback and will be distributed to a larger sample of people with IDD for further validation.</p>","PeriodicalId":47310,"journal":{"name":"Behavior Analysis in Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Adapting a Functional Assessment of Cigarette Smoking for People with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities\",\"authors\":\"Sean D. Regnier, Lindsey C. Mullis, Austin Nugent, Trenton Marcum, Morgan Turner, Jonathan A. Schulz, Joshua Lile, Thomas Shellenberg, William W. Stoops\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s40617-024-00958-6\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>There is a concerning lack of published smoking cessation research on people with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD). A Functional Assessment for Smoking Treatment Recommendations (FASTR) was recently developed to help personalize patients’ tobacco treatment. Adapting this tool to effectively identify putative environmental variables that maintain smoking for people with IDD is predicted to improve current treatments. The purpose of this study was to pilot the FASTR with people with IDD to understand modifications necessary to implement it in this population. During 1-hour interviews participants (<i>n</i> = 8) described the extent they agreed with each FASTR statement using a Likert scale, corresponding to one of five potential functions of smoking (i.e., Automatic Positive, Automatic Negative, Social Positive, Social Negative, and Antecedent). Participants gave input on potential modifications to make the assessment more inclusive for people with IDD. A quantitative approach was used to pilot the FASTR and participant narratives were used to understand difficulties and potential modifications. For each participant a function was endorsed if the average response to questions corresponding to that function was greater than 3 (neutral) or over 50% “yes” responses. The two most frequently endorsed functions were Automatic Negative (87.5% participants) and Social Negative (75% of participants). Participants recommended making the focus of each statement larger and in bold so respondents can understand the most important part of the statement. The FASTR was modified based on their feedback and will be distributed to a larger sample of people with IDD for further validation.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47310,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Behavior Analysis in Practice\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Behavior Analysis in Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-024-00958-6\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Behavior Analysis in Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-024-00958-6","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

令人担忧的是,针对智力和发育障碍(IDD)患者的戒烟研究还很缺乏。最近开发了一种 "吸烟治疗建议功能评估"(FASTR),以帮助对患者进行个性化的烟草治疗。通过调整该工具来有效识别导致 IDD 患者持续吸烟的环境变量,有望改善目前的治疗方法。本研究的目的是在 IDD 患者中试用 FASTR,以了解在该人群中实施 FASTR 所需的修改。在 1 小时的访谈中,参与者(n = 8)使用李克特量表描述了他们对 FASTR 各项陈述的认同程度,这些陈述与吸烟的五种潜在功能(即自动积极、自动消极、社会积极、社会消极和前因后果)中的一种功能相对应。参与者对可能的修改提出了意见,以使评估对 IDD 患者更具包容性。FASTR 采用定量方法进行试点,并通过参与者的叙述来了解困难和可能的修改。对于每位参与者而言,如果对与该功能相对应的问题的平均回答大于 3(中性)或超过 50% 的回答为 "是",则该功能即被认可。最常被认可的两个功能是自动否定功能(87.5% 的参与者)和社会否定功能(75% 的参与者)。参与者建议将每项陈述的重点部分放大并用粗体字标出,以便受访者了解陈述中最重要的部分。根据他们的反馈意见对 FASTR 进行了修改,并将分发给更多的 IDD 患者样本,以进一步验证其有效性。
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
Adapting a Functional Assessment of Cigarette Smoking for People with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities

There is a concerning lack of published smoking cessation research on people with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD). A Functional Assessment for Smoking Treatment Recommendations (FASTR) was recently developed to help personalize patients’ tobacco treatment. Adapting this tool to effectively identify putative environmental variables that maintain smoking for people with IDD is predicted to improve current treatments. The purpose of this study was to pilot the FASTR with people with IDD to understand modifications necessary to implement it in this population. During 1-hour interviews participants (n = 8) described the extent they agreed with each FASTR statement using a Likert scale, corresponding to one of five potential functions of smoking (i.e., Automatic Positive, Automatic Negative, Social Positive, Social Negative, and Antecedent). Participants gave input on potential modifications to make the assessment more inclusive for people with IDD. A quantitative approach was used to pilot the FASTR and participant narratives were used to understand difficulties and potential modifications. For each participant a function was endorsed if the average response to questions corresponding to that function was greater than 3 (neutral) or over 50% “yes” responses. The two most frequently endorsed functions were Automatic Negative (87.5% participants) and Social Negative (75% of participants). Participants recommended making the focus of each statement larger and in bold so respondents can understand the most important part of the statement. The FASTR was modified based on their feedback and will be distributed to a larger sample of people with IDD for further validation.

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
Behavior Analysis in Practice
Behavior Analysis in Practice PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-
自引率
18.20%
发文量
94
期刊介绍: Behavior Analysis in Practice, an official journal of the Association for Behavior Analysis International, is a peer-reviewed translational publication designed to provide science-based, best-practice information relevant to service delivery in behavior analysis. The target audience includes front-line service workers and their supervisors, scientist-practitioners, and school personnel. The mission of Behavior Analysis in Practice is to promote empirically validated best practices in an accessible format that describes not only what works, but also the challenges of implementation in practical settings. Types of articles and topics published  include empirical reports describing the application and evaluation of behavior-analytic procedures and programs; discussion papers on professional and practice issues; technical articles on methods, data analysis, or instrumentation in the practice of behavior analysis; tutorials on terms, procedures, and theories relevant to best practices in behavior analysis; and critical reviews of books and products that are aimed at practitioners or consumers of behavior analysis.
期刊最新文献
Facilitating Greater Understanding of Trauma-Informed Care in Applied Behavior Analysis: An Introduction to the Special Issue. The Effectiveness of Khan Academy in Teaching Elementary Math Procedural Integrity in Applied Settings: A Survey of Training, Practices, and Barriers Introducing "In Their Own Words" Special Series. Barriers to Careers in Behavior Analysis among Hispanic and Latinx Undergraduate Students: A Preliminary Analysis
×
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