People with aphasia and health professionals report difficulty communicating with one another: can a novel eHealth intervention help?

Carragher, Marcella; O’Halloran, Robyn; Johnson, Hilary; Taylor, Nicholas; Torabi, Torab; Rose, Miranda

doi:10.1080/02687038.2018.1484879

Cited by 5 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…One approach to accomplish increased accessibility could include researchers identifying the needs of the participants before data collection and tailoring the activities accordingly, rather than selecting participants suitable in the level of function or skills needed to engage in the pre-planned activity. The use of flexible methods, such as tailoring data collection to align with participants' needs, allows researchers to successfully include people with stroke who had post-stroke challenges by investing the time and resources required to engage with them meaningfully for data-collection [43,46,57,65,67,70,92,94].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Most data sources (n = 73/89, 82%) conducted codesign with multiple participant types (e.g., individuals with stroke, stroke family members/ caregivers, stroke clinicians). Of the included data sources, nearly all (n = 87/89, 98%) involved people with stroke, and some specifically targeted individuals with aphasia (e.g., [43,46,57,65,67,92,94]), with a loss of visual field (e.g., [70]), current or former hospital inpatients (e.g., [32,45,49,50,66,79,86,87]), with cognitive and/or physical impairments (e.g., [85]), with certain levels of physical or functional impairments (e.g., "severe upper-limb deficits" [91] and "mild to moderate level of disability" [55]), First Nations community members with stroke [64] and Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander Peoples with stroke [43]. A few researchers specified that cognitive ability was determined through clinical judgement and/or based on whether an individual could provide informed consent and participate in the study activities [74,104].…”

Section: Plos Onementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Co-design for stroke intervention development: Results of a scoping review

Singh,

Benn,

Fung

et al. 2024

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Co-design methodology seeks to actively engage end-users in developing interventions. It is increasingly used to design stroke interventions; however, limited guidance exists, particularly with/for individuals with stroke who have diverse cognitive, physical and functional abilities. Thus, we describe 1) the extent of existing research that has used co-design for stroke intervention development and 2) how co-design has been used to develop stroke interventions among studies that explicitly used co-design, including the rationale, types of co-designed stroke interventions, participants involved, research methodologies/approaches, methods of incorporating end-users in the research, co-design limitations, challenges and potential strategies reported by researchers. Materials and methods A scoping review informed by Joanna Briggs Institute and Arksey & O’Malley methodology was conducted by searching nine databases on December 21, 2022, to locate English-language literature that used co-design to develop a stroke intervention. Additional data sources were identified through a hand search. Data sources were de-duplicated, and two research team members reviewed their titles, abstracts and full text to ensure they met the inclusion criteria. Data relating to the research objectives were extracted, analyzed, and reported numerically and descriptively. Results Data sources used co-design for stroke intervention development with (n = 89) and without (n = 139) explicitly using the term ‘co-design.’ Among studies explicitly using co-design, it was commonly used to understand end-user needs and generate new ideas. Many co-designed interventions were technology-based (65%), and 48% were for physical rehabilitation or activity-based. Co-design was commonly conducted with multiple participants (82%; e.g., individuals with stroke, family members/caregivers and clinicians) and used various methods to engage end-users, including focus groups and workshops. Limitations, challenges and potential strategies for recruitment, participant-engagement, contextual and logistical and ethics of co-designed interventions were described. Conclusions Given the increasing popularity of co-design as a methodology for developing stroke interventions internationally, these findings can inform future co-designed studies.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Plos Onementioning

confidence: 99%

Co-design for stroke intervention development: Results of a scoping review

Singh,

Benn,

Fung

et al. 2024

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Optimising Healthcare Communication for People with Aphasia in Hospital: Key Directions for Future Research

Lamborn,

Carragher,

O’Halloran

et al. 2024

Curr Phys Med Rehabil Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose of Review People with aphasia and their healthcare workers have difficulty communicating, leaving people with aphasia at risk of poorer quality care, experiences and health outcomes. It is not yet known how best to optimise healthcare communication for this population. This literature review provides directions for future research regarding interventions aiming to optimise communication between healthcare workers and people with aphasia in hospital. Findings This paper offers four key foci to consider when planning or evaluating interventions: (1) individual and (2) systems-level environmental factors must be targeted to facilitate successful implementation, (3) reliable and feasible outcome measures must be developed to measure communication change in actual clinical interactions and (4) studies must be designed and reported adequately to ensure replicable and comparable research. Summary This paper provides direction for research on interventions to enhance patient-provider communication, and quality care for people with aphasia in hospital, to enable better participation and care outcomes for this population.

show abstract