Rumbach Anna F, Finch Emma, Stevenson Grace
School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia; Speech Pathology Department, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Metro South Hospital and Health Service, Queensland Government, Australia; Centre for Functioning and Health Research, Metro South Hospital and Health Service, Queensland Government, Australia.
J Commun Disord. 2019 May-Jun;79:46-57. doi: 10.1016/j.jcomdis.2019.03.002. Epub 2019 Mar 8.
This aim of this study was to identify assessment practices for non-progressive dysarthria used by Australian speech-language pathologists (SLPs) and to describe these practices within the framework of the World Health Organization's International Classification of Functioning Disability, and Health (ICF). A 23-item online survey was distributed to Australian SLPs, with 56 responses suitable for data analysis. The majority of SLPs prescribed 'high importance' to the assessment of impairment to speech function (96%, n = 54), activity limitations (91%, n = 51) and participation in society (91%, n = 51) in non-progressive dysarthria. However, reported assessment selection for non-progressive dysarthria focused largely on impairment and intelligibility, with assessments addressing participation restrictions being under-utilised. There was also a preference for informal assessment tools across all ICF domains. Over half (69%, n = 37) indicated that current assessment tools for non-progressive dysarthria generally do not meet their needs, with key issues being time-factors and inadequate sensitivity. There was variability in the use of outcome measures for non-progressive dysarthria, with workplace setting, time constraints and a perceived lack of relevance being the most commonly reported barriers to implementation.
本研究的目的是确定澳大利亚言语病理学家（SLP）对非进行性构音障碍所采用的评估方法，并在世卫组织的《国际功能、残疾和健康分类》（ICF）框架内描述这些方法。向澳大利亚的言语病理学家发放了一份包含23个条目的在线调查问卷，共收到56份适合进行数据分析的回复。大多数言语病理学家认为对非进行性构音障碍的言语功能损害（96%，n = 54）、活动受限（91%，n = 51）和社会参与（91%，n = 51）评估“非常重要”。然而，报告的针对非进行性构音障碍的评估选择主要集中在损害和可懂度方面，而针对参与限制的评估未得到充分利用。在ICF的所有领域中，也更倾向于使用非正式评估工具。超过一半（69%，n = 37）的人表示，目前用于非进行性构音障碍的评估工具通常不能满足他们的需求，关键问题是时间因素和敏感性不足。在非进行性构音障碍的结果测量使用方面存在差异，工作场所环境、时间限制和认为缺乏相关性是最常报告的实施障碍。
