Social model philosophies and principles: Their applications to therapies for aphasia

Byng, Sally; Duchan, Judith Felson

doi:10.1080/02687030544000128

Cited by 91 publications

(58 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…To what extent the experiential knowledge of PWA is included in programme evaluation and redesign varies greatly. This study offers (1) a multi-perspectival evaluation of a conversation training intervention from the emic experiences of participants; (2) an innovative participatory health research approach for service design, development, and evaluation that is consistent with the living with aphasia framework (Byng & Duchan, 2005;Pound, Duchan, Penman, Hewitt, & Parr, 2007;Pound, Parr, & Duchan, 2001); and (3) an illustration of how to use PLA to include PWA and other key stakeholder groups as participants and co-researchers throughout the research process.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The psychosocial consequences of aphasia are reduced as positive conversation R. Mc opportunities are increased (Byng & Duchan, 2005). Trained conversation partners reveal the competence of the person with aphasia (Kagan, 1995;Kagan et al, 2001) and social interaction is prioritised above linguistic gains (Kagan et al, 2008;McVicker et al, 2009).…”

Section: Conversation Training Approachesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

“Who decides what criteria are important to consider in exploring the outcomes of conversation approaches? A participatory health research study”

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundOne of the most devastating consequences of aphasia is the disruption to normal conversation. The Conversation Partner Programme emphasises communicative competence and life participation. Currently there is no recognised system for evaluating this intervention. Following policy imperatives for patient and public involvement, it is important to include service users in the development of evaluation criteria. However, people with aphasia are often excluded from such research and service development initiatives because of their communication disability. This study was designed to include people with aphasia and other key stakeholders as co-researchers in the development of evaluation criteria for a Conversation Partner Programme. AimsTo describe the multi-perspectival co-generation of Conversation Partner Programme evaluation criteria using a participatory research approach. Methods & ProceduresFollowing a pilot study, the generation and analysis of qualitative data involved a Participatory Learning and Action (PLA) approach based on the interpretive paradigm. Using purposeful sampling participants (n = 20) included: people with aphasia (n = 5); speech and language therapists (n = 5); speech and language therapy graduates and undergraduates (n = 9) and university coordinator (n = 1). Through (n = 18) individual and interstakeholder data generation episodes (PLA focus groups and interviews) using participatory techniques (Flexible Brainstorming, Card Sort, Direct Ranking, Seasonal Calendar), evaluation criteria were identified. The R. Mc Menamin et al. 2015principles of thematic analysis guided the co-analysis of data with participants. Data generated in Ireland were presented to an international inter-stakeholder group at Connect, UK, for preliminary exploration of transferability of findings. Outcomes & ResultsConversation Partner Programme evaluation criteria agreed and prioritised by co-researchers in order of importance included: (1) shared understanding of structure, (2) clarity about the programme, (3) agreed evaluation mechanism, (4) linking with other organisations, and (5) feedback. "Shared Understanding of Structure" was ranked the most important criterion and related to the nature and number of participants, opportunities for group meetings, socialising, and stakeholder interaction."Feedback", the criterion ranked least important, detailed responsibilities about summarising programme experiences and sharing this information between stakeholders. ConclusionsPeople with aphasia and other key stakeholders were meaningfully involved in the identification of evaluation criteria for a Conversation Partner Programme. The outcomes of this collaborative work bridge the gap between policy imperatives around involvement and actual practice and will impact the design, delivery, and evaluation of the programme for all stakeholders. Findings will be of interest to professionals in this clinical area and to those exploring innovative methodologies to include marginalised service users, especially pe...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Conversation Training Approachesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“Who decides what criteria are important to consider in exploring the outcomes of conversation approaches? A participatory health research study”

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Their contributions should be valued by others and not only by themselves [20]. They can advise on the conditions and support which make this possible.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Disability can bring with it social isolation and exclusion from participation in many areas of life [20].…”

Section: Conclusion and Clinical Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Active citizenship and acquired neurological communication difficulty

Mackenzie

Bennett²,

Cairney

2011

Disability and Rehabilitation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Discussion included the definition of active citizenship, their civic involvement, motivations, related barriers and facilitators. Qualitative analysis was undertaken, with data categorised, coded and examined for recurring themes.Results: All participants were active in disability-related organisations and four undertook wider civic roles. Motivations included activity being outwith the home and wanting to effect change for themselves and the populations they represented. Disability group meetings were more positive experiences than broader community activities, which were associated with fatigue and frustration, commonly resulting from communication difficulties and unmet support needs. All participants identified a need for professional and public educational about disability and communication and made recommendations on content, methods and priority groups. The investigation aimed to explore the experience of civically engaged adults who have CSN resulting from acquired neurological lesions, with reference to motivations, barriers, and changes which might facilitate the more effective civic participation of people with CSN. Conclusions MethodThe topic of civic participation and the aims of the investigation were discussed at a CPN meeting.The group discussion informed issues to be explored via individual interview. Six CPN members with acquired neurological communication difficulties consented to be interviewed by MC and quoted in publication. The interviewer was a clinically experienced speech and language therapy student who was undertaking a university internship. She was present at the CPN meeting at which the investigation was discussed, but had no other prior contact with the participants. The informed consent process used accessible language and format. There were three males and three females, Therapy outcome measures (TOM) [10] ratings were assigned to provide summary information of impairment, activity, participation and wellbeing/distress, using the scale appropriate to each participant: 3, 6, 13. Ratings were made independently by CM, MC and an independent researcher, MM, based on the interview video-recordings and transcripts and the information conveyed therein.There was agreement between at least two of the three raters for all 24 scores and these agreed scores are given in table 1.[ MC transcribed the response data orthographically from the videorecordings. CM checked the transcripts against the recordings and made very few amendments, relating to omitted words or words not intelligible to the transcriber, none of which affected information content. 6Data analysis was carried out by CM. The first step was immersion in and becoming familiar with the data, through viewing the recordings, reading and re-reading both the entire transcripts and their sections. Next, content which was unrelated to civic participation, for example discussion of shopping and banking experiences, was discounted. The analysis procedure outlined by Granheim and Lundamn (2004) [11], and used previously with aphasic dat...

show abstract

“…How persons with communicative impairment can become part of social life is a major concern for practitioners as well as researchers. Participation has, for example, been a focal area within speech and language theory, as witnessed by the social model (Byng & Duchan, 2005;Simmons-Mackie, 2000), and by the functional approach (Worrall & Frattali, 2000 Duchan, 2004;Rasmussen, 2016). The ICF definition of activity focuses on 'individual's actions and tasks' rather than actions and tasks as emergent social and dialogical processes that always involve more than one person.…”

Section: Participation As Individual Involvement: the Icf Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Participating with limited communication means: Conversation analytical perspectives on the interactional management of participation structures

Krummheuer

Klippi

Raudaskoski

et al. 2016

Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Social model philosophies and principles: Their applications to therapies for aphasia

Cited by 91 publications

References 15 publications

“Who decides what criteria are important to consider in exploring the outcomes of conversation approaches? A participatory health research study”

“Who decides what criteria are important to consider in exploring the outcomes of conversation approaches? A participatory health research study”

Active citizenship and acquired neurological communication difficulty

Participating with limited communication means: Conversation analytical perspectives on the interactional management of participation structures

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About