Priorities for Closing the Evidence-Practice Gaps in Poststroke Aphasia Rehabilitation: A Scoping Review

Shrubsole, K; Worrall, L; Power, E; O'Connor, DA

Priorities for Closing the Evidence-Practice Gaps in Poststroke Aphasia Rehabilitation: A Scoping Review

Shrubsole, K Worrall, L Power, E

O'Connor, DA

Permalink

Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 2018, 99 (7), pp. 1413 - 1423.e24
Issue Date:: 2018-07-01

Closed Access

	Filename	Description	Size
	1-s2.0-S0003999317310833-main.pdf	Published Version	2.06 MB	Adobe PDF	View/Open

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Closed Access

This item is closed access and not available.

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Shrubsole, K	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Worrall, L	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Power, E https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2638-0406	en_US
dc.contributor.author	O'Connor, DA	en_US
dc.date.available	2017-08-14	en_US
dc.date.issued	2018-07-01	en_US
dc.identifier.citation	Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 2018, 99 (7), pp. 1413 - 1423.e24	en_US
dc.identifier.issn	0003-9993	en_US
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/127818
dc.description.abstract	© 2017 American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine Objective: To identify implementation priorities for poststroke aphasia management relevant to the Australian health care context. Data Sources: Using systematized searches of databases (CINAHL and MEDLINE), guideline and stroke websites, and other sources, evidence was identified and extracted for 7 implementation criteria for 13 topic areas relevant to aphasia management. These 7 priority-setting criteria were identified in the implementation literature: strength of the evidence, current evidence-practice gap, clinician preference, patient preference, modifiability, measurability, and health effect. Study Selection: Articles were included if they were in English, related to a specific recommendation requiring implementation, and contained information pertaining to any of the 7 prioritization criteria. Data Extraction: The scoping review methodology was chosen to address the broad nature of the topic. Evidence was extracted and placed in an evidence matrix. After this, evidence was summarized and then aphasia rehabilitation topics were prioritized using an approach developed by the research team. Data Synthesis: Evidence from 100 documents was extracted and summarized. Four topic areas were identified as implementation priorities for aphasia: timing, amount, and intensity of therapy; goal setting; information, education, and aphasia-friendly information; and constraint-induced language therapy. Conclusions: Closing the evidence-practice gaps in the 4 priority areas identified may deliver the greatest gains in outcomes for Australian stroke survivors with aphasia. Our approach to developing implementation priorities may be useful for identifying priorities for implementation in other health care areas.	en_US
dc.relation.ispartof	Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation	en_US
dc.relation.isbasedon	10.1016/j.apmr.2017.08.474	en_US
dc.subject.classification	Rehabilitation	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Humans	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Aphasia	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Evidence-Based Medicine	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Stroke	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Stroke Rehabilitation	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Professional Practice Gaps	en_US
dc.title	Priorities for Closing the Evidence-Practice Gaps in Poststroke Aphasia Rehabilitation: A Scoping Review	en_US
dc.type	Journal Article
utslib.citation.volume	7	en_US
utslib.citation.volume	99	en_US
utslib.for	1103 Clinical Sciences	en_US
utslib.for	1117 Public Health and Health Services	en_US
utslib.for	1106 Human Movement and Sports Sciences	en_US
pubs.embargo.period	Not known	en_US
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Graduate School of Health
utslib.copyright.status	closed_access
pubs.issue	7	en_US
pubs.publication-status	Published	en_US
pubs.volume	99	en_US

Abstract:

© 2017 American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine Objective: To identify implementation priorities for poststroke aphasia management relevant to the Australian health care context. Data Sources: Using systematized searches of databases (CINAHL and MEDLINE), guideline and stroke websites, and other sources, evidence was identified and extracted for 7 implementation criteria for 13 topic areas relevant to aphasia management. These 7 priority-setting criteria were identified in the implementation literature: strength of the evidence, current evidence-practice gap, clinician preference, patient preference, modifiability, measurability, and health effect. Study Selection: Articles were included if they were in English, related to a specific recommendation requiring implementation, and contained information pertaining to any of the 7 prioritization criteria. Data Extraction: The scoping review methodology was chosen to address the broad nature of the topic. Evidence was extracted and placed in an evidence matrix. After this, evidence was summarized and then aphasia rehabilitation topics were prioritized using an approach developed by the research team. Data Synthesis: Evidence from 100 documents was extracted and summarized. Four topic areas were identified as implementation priorities for aphasia: timing, amount, and intensity of therapy; goal setting; information, education, and aphasia-friendly information; and constraint-induced language therapy. Conclusions: Closing the evidence-practice gaps in the 4 priority areas identified may deliver the greatest gains in outcomes for Australian stroke survivors with aphasia. Our approach to developing implementation priorities may be useful for identifying priorities for implementation in other health care areas.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/127818