| 1 |
New perspectives, theory, method, and practice: Qualitative research and innovation in speech-language pathology
|
|
|
|
In: Research outputs 2022 to 2026 (2022)
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 2 |
Investigation of the implementation of a communication enhanced environment model on an acute/slow stream rehabilitation and a rehabilitation ward: A before-and-after pilot study
|
|
|
|
In: Research outputs 2014 to 2021 (2022)
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 3 |
Patients’ experiences of a communication enhanced environment model on an acute/slow stream rehabilitation and a rehabilitation ward following stroke: A qualitative description approach
|
|
|
|
In: Research outputs 2014 to 2021 (2021)
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 4 |
Creating a theoretical framework to underpin discourse assessment and intervention in aphasia
|
|
|
|
In: Research outputs 2014 to 2021 (2021)
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 5 |
“You felt like a prisoner in your own self, trapped”: The experiences of Aboriginal people with acquired communication disorders
|
|
|
|
In: Research outputs 2014 to 2021 (2021)
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 6 |
Developing person-centred goal setting resources with and for people with aphasia: A multi-phase qualitative study
|
|
|
|
In: Research outputs 2014 to 2021 (2021)
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 7 |
“Giving yourself some breathing room…”: an exploration of group meditation for people with aphasia
|
|
|
|
In: Research outputs 2014 to 2021 (2021)
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 8 |
The ethics of patient and public involvement across the research process: Towards partnership with people with aphasia
|
|
|
|
In: Research outputs 2014 to 2021 (2021)
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 9 |
Creating a novel approach to discourse treatment through coproduction with people with aphasia and speech and language therapists
|
|
|
|
In: Research outputs 2014 to 2021 (2021)
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 10 |
Treatment for improving discourse in aphasia: A systematic review and synthesis of the evidence base
|
|
|
|
In: Research outputs 2014 to 2021 (2021)
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 11 |
“Sometimes I feel grateful…”: Experiences of the adolescent siblings of children with autism spectrum disorder in Malaysia
|
|
|
|
In: Research outputs 2014 to 2021 (2021)
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 12 |
“Sometimes I Feel Grateful…”: Experiences of the Adolescent Siblings of Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder in Malaysia
|
|
|
|
In: J Autism Dev Disord (2021)
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 13 |
Creating a Theoretical Framework to Underpin Discourse Assessment and Intervention in Aphasia
|
|
|
|
In: Brain Sci (2021)
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 14 |
Information, communication, advocacy, and complaint: how the spouse of a man with aphasia managed his discharge from hospital
|
|
|
|
In: Research outputs 2014 to 2021 (2020)
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 15 |
Therapeutic relationships in aphasia rehabilitation: Using sociological theories to promote critical reflexivity
|
|
|
|
In: Research outputs 2014 to 2021 (2020)
|
|
Abstract:
© 2020 The Authors. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists Background: Therapeutic relationships are fundamental in aphasia rehabilitation, influencing patient experience and outcomes. While we have good understandings of the components of therapeutic relationships, there has been little exploration of how and why therapists construct and enact relationships as they do. Sociological theories may help develop nuanced understanding of the values, assumptions and structures that influence practice, and may facilitate critical reflexivity on practice. Aims: To explore the potential for theoretical approaches from outside speech–language therapy to enable a deeper understanding of the nature and enactment of therapeutic relationships in aphasia rehabilitation. Methods & Procedures: An explanatory single case study of one speech–language therapist–patient dyad in an in-patient stroke rehabilitation setting. Data included observations of five interactions, two interviews with the client and three interviews with the speech–language therapist. Analysis was guided by analytical pluralism that applied aspects of three sociological theories to guide data analysis and make visible the contextual factors that surround, shape and permeate the enactment of therapeutic relationships. Outcomes & Results: The analysis of this dyad made visible individual, interactional and broader structural features that illustrate the dynamic processes that practitioners and patients undertake to enact therapeutic relationships. Clinical practice could be viewed as a performance with each person continually negotiating how they convey different impressions to others, which shapes what work is valued and foregrounded. The patient and therapist took up or were placed in different positions within the interactions, each with associated expectations and rights, which influenced what types of relationships could, or were likely to, develop. Organizational, rehabilitation and individual practitioner structures assigned rules and boundaries that shaped how the therapist developed and enacted the therapeutic relationship. Whilst the therapist had some agency in her work and could resist the different influencing factors, such resistance was constrained because these structures had become highly internalized and routinized and was not always visible to the therapist. Conclusions & Implications: While therapists commonly value therapeutic relationships, social and structural factors consciously and unconsciously influence their ability to prioritize relational work. Sociological theories can provide new lenses on our practice that can assist therapists to be critically reflexive about practice, and to enact changes to how they work to enhance therapeutic relationships with clients. What this paper adds What is already known on the subject Therapeutic relationships are critical in aphasia rehabilitation. We have a good understanding of the different components of therapeutic relationships and how relationships are perceived by patients and practitioners. What this paper adds to existing knowledge This study is novel in its use of sociological lenses to explore contexts and complexities inherent in building and maintaining therapeutic relationships. These are often invisible to the practitioner but can have a significant impact on how relational work is enacted and what forms of relationship are possible. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work? This study will support clinicians to critically reflect on how they enact therapeutic relationships and may enhance awareness of the often-hidden factors which influence the ways in which they work.
|
|
Keyword:
aphasia; Communication Sciences and Disorders; critical reflexivity; Medicine and Health Sciences; rehabilitation; sociology; Speech and Hearing Science; theory; therapeutic relationships
|
|
URL: https://ro.ecu.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=10666&context=ecuworkspost2013
https://ro.ecu.edu.au/ecuworkspost2013/9660
|
|
BASE
|
|
Hide details
|
|
|
| 16 |
UK speech and language therapists' views and reported practices of discourse analysis in aphasia rehabilitation
|
|
|
|
In: Research outputs 2014 to 2021 (2020)
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 17 |
Information, communication, advocacy, and complaint: how the spouse of a man with aphasia managed his discharge from hospital
|
|
|
|
In: Aphasiology (2020)
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 18 |
Therapeutic relationships in aphasia rehabilitation: Using sociological theories to promote critical reflexivity
|
|
|
|
In: Int J Lang Commun Disord (2020)
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 19 |
General practitioners’ perceptions of their communication with Australian Aboriginal patients with acquired neurogenic communication disorders
|
|
|
|
In: Research outputs 2014 to 2021 (2019)
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 20 |
A screening tool for acquired communication disorders in Aboriginal Australians after brain injury: lessons learned from the pilot phase
|
|
|
|
In: Research outputs 2014 to 2021 (2019)
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
|
|
