1/1
A Systematic Review of Cognition and Communication Skills in Adults with Acquired Brain Injury (Coleman et al., 2014)
dataset
posted on 2015-05-01, 00:00 authored by Jaumeiko J. Coleman, Tobi Frymark, Nicole M. Franceschini, Deborah G. TheodorosPurpose This is a systematic review of assessment and treatment of cognitive and communicative abilities of individuals with acquired brain injury via telepractice versus in person. The a priori clinical questions were informed by previous research that highlights the importance of considering any functional implications of outcomes, determining disorder- and setting-specific concerns, and measuring the potential impact of diagnostic accuracy and treatment efficacy data on interpretation of findings.
Method A literature search of multiple databases (e.g., PubMed) was conducted using key words and study inclusion criteria associated with the clinical questions. Results Ten group studies were accepted that addressed assessment of motor speech, language, and cognitive impairments; assessment of motor speech and language activity limitations/participation restrictions; and treatment of cognitive impairments and activity limitations/participation restrictions. In most cases, equivalence of outcomes was noted across service delivery methods.
Conclusions Limited findings, lack of diagnostic accuracy and treatment efficacy data, and heterogeneity of assessments and interventions precluded robust evaluation of clinical implications for telepractice equivalence and the broader area of telepractice efficacy. Future research is needed that will build upon current knowledge through replication. In addition, further evaluation at the impairment and activity limitation/participation restriction levels is needed.
Method A literature search of multiple databases (e.g., PubMed) was conducted using key words and study inclusion criteria associated with the clinical questions. Results Ten group studies were accepted that addressed assessment of motor speech, language, and cognitive impairments; assessment of motor speech and language activity limitations/participation restrictions; and treatment of cognitive impairments and activity limitations/participation restrictions. In most cases, equivalence of outcomes was noted across service delivery methods.
Conclusions Limited findings, lack of diagnostic accuracy and treatment efficacy data, and heterogeneity of assessments and interventions precluded robust evaluation of clinical implications for telepractice equivalence and the broader area of telepractice efficacy. Future research is needed that will build upon current knowledge through replication. In addition, further evaluation at the impairment and activity limitation/participation restriction levels is needed.
