应用实施科学理论支持职业治疗师在认知评估方面的实践变革。

IF 1.1 4区 医学 Q4 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Brain Impairment Pub Date : 2024-08-01 DOI:10.1071/IB23105
Jacqueline Wheatcroft, Rebecca J Nicks, Laura Jolliffe, Danielle Sansonetti, Carolyn Unsworth, Natasha A Lannin
{"title":"应用实施科学理论支持职业治疗师在认知评估方面的实践变革。","authors":"Jacqueline Wheatcroft, Rebecca J Nicks, Laura Jolliffe, Danielle Sansonetti, Carolyn Unsworth, Natasha A Lannin","doi":"10.1071/IB23105","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Background Understanding cognitive impairments is essential for effective rehabilitation and discharge planning for adults with neurological conditions. The aim of this study was to identify barriers to completing standardised cognitive assessments and evaluate the implementation of an intervention to support practice change. Methods A mixed-methods approach was applied to translate cognitive assessment recommendations into clinical practice using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) and the Capability, Opportunity, and Motivation Behaviour model (COM-B) theories. Occupational therapists at one metropolitan health service in Australia were invited to participate. Pre- and post-implementation file audits and surveys were conducted, along with focus groups that collected qualitative data analysed using the TDF and COM-B. Results Survey 1 (n =40) and focus group data (n =24) identified barriers in the TDF domains of knowledge (selection of assessments), environment and resources (equipment and time constraints), and social influences (pressure from other disciplines). To address barriers to implementing a cognitive assessment framework, scripts, cue cards, video-recorded training, and posters were developed as guided by the Behaviour Change Wheel (BCW). Survey 2 showed increased capability to physically administer cognitive assessments (53-74%) and improved clinician understanding of relevant clinical practice guideline (CPG) recommendations (22-50%). File audit data indicated a 30% increase in the number of standardised assessments completed. Conclusions The application of two implementation theories led to the development of an intervention that increased occupational therapists' confidence and their adherence to CPG recommendations. This study serves as a potential model for using the TDF and COM-B to create implementation interventions in various clinical practice areas.</p>","PeriodicalId":56329,"journal":{"name":"Brain Impairment","volume":"25 ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Applying implementation science theories to support practice change in the assessment of cognition by occupational therapists.\",\"authors\":\"Jacqueline Wheatcroft, Rebecca J Nicks, Laura Jolliffe, Danielle Sansonetti, Carolyn Unsworth, Natasha A Lannin\",\"doi\":\"10.1071/IB23105\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Background Understanding cognitive impairments is essential for effective rehabilitation and discharge planning for adults with neurological conditions. The aim of this study was to identify barriers to completing standardised cognitive assessments and evaluate the implementation of an intervention to support practice change. Methods A mixed-methods approach was applied to translate cognitive assessment recommendations into clinical practice using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) and the Capability, Opportunity, and Motivation Behaviour model (COM-B) theories. Occupational therapists at one metropolitan health service in Australia were invited to participate. Pre- and post-implementation file audits and surveys were conducted, along with focus groups that collected qualitative data analysed using the TDF and COM-B. Results Survey 1 (n =40) and focus group data (n =24) identified barriers in the TDF domains of knowledge (selection of assessments), environment and resources (equipment and time constraints), and social influences (pressure from other disciplines). To address barriers to implementing a cognitive assessment framework, scripts, cue cards, video-recorded training, and posters were developed as guided by the Behaviour Change Wheel (BCW). Survey 2 showed increased capability to physically administer cognitive assessments (53-74%) and improved clinician understanding of relevant clinical practice guideline (CPG) recommendations (22-50%). File audit data indicated a 30% increase in the number of standardised assessments completed. Conclusions The application of two implementation theories led to the development of an intervention that increased occupational therapists' confidence and their adherence to CPG recommendations. This study serves as a potential model for using the TDF and COM-B to create implementation interventions in various clinical practice areas.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":56329,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Brain Impairment\",\"volume\":\"25 \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Brain Impairment\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1071/IB23105\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Brain Impairment","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1071/IB23105","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景 了解认知障碍对于神经系统疾病成人患者的有效康复和出院规划至关重要。本研究旨在确定完成标准化认知评估的障碍,并评估干预措施的实施情况,以支持实践变革。方法 采用混合方法,利用理论领域框架(TDF)和能力、机会和动机行为模型(COM-B)理论,将认知评估建议转化为临床实践。澳大利亚一个大都市医疗服务机构的职业治疗师应邀参加了此次研究。我们进行了实施前和实施后的档案审核和调查,并通过焦点小组收集了使用 TDF 和 COM-B 分析的定性数据。结果 调查 1(n =40)和焦点小组数据(n =24)确定了在知识(评估的选择)、环境和资源(设备和时间限制)以及社会影响(来自其他学科的压力)等 TDF 领域存在的障碍。为了解决实施认知评估框架的障碍,在行为改变轮(BCW)的指导下,开发了脚本、提示卡、视频录像培训和海报。调查 2 显示,实际实施认知评估的能力有所提高(53-74%),临床医生对相关临床实践指南 (CPG) 建议的理解也有所加深(22-50%)。档案审核数据显示,完成标准化评估的数量增加了 30%。结论 两种实施理论的应用促成了一项干预措施的开发,该措施增强了职业治疗师的信心,提高了他们对 CPG 建议的依从性。这项研究可作为使用 TDF 和 COM-B 在不同临床实践领域制定实施干预措施的潜在模型。
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
Applying implementation science theories to support practice change in the assessment of cognition by occupational therapists.

Background Understanding cognitive impairments is essential for effective rehabilitation and discharge planning for adults with neurological conditions. The aim of this study was to identify barriers to completing standardised cognitive assessments and evaluate the implementation of an intervention to support practice change. Methods A mixed-methods approach was applied to translate cognitive assessment recommendations into clinical practice using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) and the Capability, Opportunity, and Motivation Behaviour model (COM-B) theories. Occupational therapists at one metropolitan health service in Australia were invited to participate. Pre- and post-implementation file audits and surveys were conducted, along with focus groups that collected qualitative data analysed using the TDF and COM-B. Results Survey 1 (n =40) and focus group data (n =24) identified barriers in the TDF domains of knowledge (selection of assessments), environment and resources (equipment and time constraints), and social influences (pressure from other disciplines). To address barriers to implementing a cognitive assessment framework, scripts, cue cards, video-recorded training, and posters were developed as guided by the Behaviour Change Wheel (BCW). Survey 2 showed increased capability to physically administer cognitive assessments (53-74%) and improved clinician understanding of relevant clinical practice guideline (CPG) recommendations (22-50%). File audit data indicated a 30% increase in the number of standardised assessments completed. Conclusions The application of two implementation theories led to the development of an intervention that increased occupational therapists' confidence and their adherence to CPG recommendations. This study serves as a potential model for using the TDF and COM-B to create implementation interventions in various clinical practice areas.

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
Brain Impairment
Brain Impairment CLINICAL NEUROLOGY-NEUROSCIENCES
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
30
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The journal addresses topics related to the aetiology, epidemiology, treatment and outcomes of brain impairment with a particular focus on the implications for functional status, participation, rehabilitation and quality of life. Disciplines reflect a broad multidisciplinary scope and include neuroscience, neurology, neuropsychology, psychiatry, clinical psychology, occupational therapy, physiotherapy, speech pathology, social work, and nursing. Submissions are welcome across the full range of conditions that affect brain function (stroke, tumour, progressive neurological illnesses, dementia, traumatic brain injury, epilepsy, etc.) throughout the lifespan.
期刊最新文献
Feasibility of accelerometry in a self-directed upper limb activity program of a subacute setting with stroke survivors. Health literacy after traumatic brain injury: characterisation and control comparison. Perceptions and experiences of health professionals when supporting adults with stroke to engage in physical activity. Editorial: Clinical implementation to optimise outcomes for people with brain conditions. The development of a cognitive screening protocol for Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander peoples: the Guddi Way screen.
×
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