Speech-language pathologists’ preferences for patient-centeredness

Bellon-Harn, Monica L.; Azios, Jamie H.; Dockens, Ashley L.; Manchaiah, Vinaya

doi:10.1016/j.jcomdis.2017.06.012

Cited by 9 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Person-centered care in SLP-care that is defined by and focused on the needs, values, priorities, and cultures of an individual client-compels us to capture each client's perspective on the communication disorder, and to document that our interventions have led to changes that they define as worthwhile. [3][4][5] PROs can bring measurement rigor to the client values and perspectives component of evidence-based practice. 1 A variety of PROs relevant to various communication disorders in adults are available including those pertaining to neurologic communication disorders, [6][7][8] voice disorders, [9][10][11] and fluency.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Communicative Participation Item Bank: Evaluating, and Reevaluating, Its Use across Communication Disorders in Adults

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are essential in patient-centered, evidence-based practice in speech-language pathology. PROs respect individuals who live with communication disorders as key stakeholders providing a critically unique perspective on consequences of communication disorders, and whether interventions bring about meaningful changes. Some PROs focus on specific communication symptoms such as voice or language symptom severity, while others focus on broader constructs such as quality of life. Many PROs target specific diagnostic groups. This article presents the Communicative Participation Item Bank (CPIB), a PRO that measures communicative participation restrictions. The CPIB was based on the concept of participation, or engagement in life situations, as defined in the World Health Organization's International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health. It was designed to be relevant for adults across different communication disorders to facilitate clinical and research activities that may involve either comparing or aggregating data across communication disorders. The CPIB follows current PRO development protocols including systematic guidance from stakeholders through cognitive interviews, and the measurement methods of Item Response Theory that allow precise and adaptive assessment. This article reviews use of the CPIB across different diagnostic groups, and identifies needs for future efforts to expand the relevance of the CPIB further.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Communicative Participation Item Bank: Evaluating, and Reevaluating, Its Use across Communication Disorders in Adults

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Student SLPs indicated that the ICF promotes holistic practice. While students and health practitioners value person-centeredness ( Bellon-Harn, Hartwell Azios and Dockens, 2017 ; Dockens, Bellon-Harn and Manchaiah, 2016 ), explicit person-centred interventions are uncommon ( Torrence et al , 2016 ). Interventions typically address impairment and skill-based activity levels, focusing on tasks and target behaviours, rather than considering other ICF components, notably life participation ( Kjellberg et al , 2012 ; Ramklass, 2015 ; Torrence et al , 2016 ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“A way to think of the client holistically”: Factors influencing speech-language pathology students’ ICF regard and uptake

Scholten¹,

Ross²,

Bickford³

2019

MedEdPublish

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The manuscript has been amended in the following ways: 1) Provision of additional information in the opening paragraph about the origin of the ICF, including the rationale and historical context and chief components. 2) We have shortened the Introduction section and specifically edited the section pertaining to Bornbaum et al's (2015) scoping review. We have maintained the majority of the citations to ensure readers can refer to the key references. 3) The respondents are described as student speech-language pathologists (SLPs), to better convey the specific surveyed population. We would ensure that this is reflected in the broader discussion and the take home message sections. 4) Table 2 Demographics has been updated to include information about the number or respondents where demographic information was not specified. The confidence intervals have been recalculated. 5) We have clarified that eighty-five student SLPs responded to three open survey questions. 6) With the Model in Figure 2, we have clarified that the original model was of our own design and state 'we expound the model with specific details relating to student findings depicting the process of integrating the ICF into practice'. We have elaborated that the model illustrates that the 'cycle begins with learning experiences related to the ICF which generate knowledge and affect ICF regard and are in turn influenced by knowledge level, barriers and facilitators. Level of uptake, depicted on the far right of the model as using the ICF as a "way of thinking", is optimised by experiential learning. It is influenced by both regard for the ICF and facilitators and barriers, including the restrictive influences of rudimentary understanding. Practice and continued education sustain ICF use, closing the learning loop'. We have updated the citation. 7) We have done some minor editing in the Discussion section to reduce word count but have maintained the majority of the citations to enable the reader to refer to key references. 8) We have updated the Conclusion section to provide a more comprehensive summary of the study and its relevance. We have also updated the Take Home Message section to reflect the changes made to the manuscript and emphasise the important empirical and theoretical findings. 9) Retrieval dates provided for online resources in the reference list. 10) Acknowledgement provided for the source of Figures 1 and 2.

show abstract

“…In contrast with many other disciplines within healthcare, few studies have investigated the preference and orientation of speech-language pathologists and audiologists to PCC (Laplante-Lévesque et al, 2014;Manchaiah et al, 2014Manchaiah et al, , 2017Bellon-Harn et al, 2017). A survey of 663 Australian audiologists found that the majority showed a preference toward PCC with age, gender, work experience and sector of work described as factors influencing person-centeredness (Laplante-Lévesque et al, 2014).…”

Section: Pcc In Speech-language Pathology and Audiologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Person-centered care: preferences and predictors in speech-language pathology and audiology practitioners

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionIncreasingly person-centered care (PCC) is being recognized as an important aspect of speech-language pathology and audiology (SLP/A) service delivery. This study aimed to (i) identify preferences toward PCC; (ii) determine predictors of these preferences; and (iii) describe the understanding and views of PCC among SLP/A in South Africa.MethodsA mixed-method design was followed utilizing an online survey and four focus group discussions. The survey included demographic questions, the modified Patient-Practitioner Orientation Scale (mPPOS), the Ten-Item-Personality-Inventory (TIPI) and an open-ended question. The focus group discussions included prompting questions which facilitated an open-ended discussion.ResultsA total of 91 practitioners (39.6% speech-language pathologists) completed the online survey, with nine (44.4% audiologists) participating in the focus group discussions. A high preference toward PCC was noted, with a total mean mPPOS score of 4.6 (0.6 SD). Quantile regression analysis revealed four predictors (age, home language, sector, and personality trait openness) associated with PCC preferences. Three main categories emerged from the open-ended question and focus group discussions: (i) Positive experiences with PCC; (ii) restrictions toward PCC, and (iii) PCC exposure.DiscussionPositive (age and personality trait openness) and negative (home language and sector of employment) predictors toward PCC exist among speech-language pathologists and audiologists, with an overall general preference toward PCC. Practitioners experience facilitators and barriers toward implementing PCC including the extent of personal experiences, available resources and tools as well as workplace culture. These aspects require further investigation.

show abstract

Speech-language pathologists’ preferences for patient-centeredness

Cited by 9 publications

References 28 publications

The Communicative Participation Item Bank: Evaluating, and Reevaluating, Its Use across Communication Disorders in Adults

The Communicative Participation Item Bank: Evaluating, and Reevaluating, Its Use across Communication Disorders in Adults

“A way to think of the client holistically”: Factors influencing speech-language pathology students’ ICF regard and uptake

Person-centered care: preferences and predictors in speech-language pathology and audiology practitioners

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About