Measuring outcomes of communication partner training of health care professionals: How do we evaluate outcomes with feasible, valid and reliable methods?

Research output: Contribution to conferenceConference abstract for conferenceResearchpeer-review

Standard

Measuring outcomes of communication partner training of health care professionals: How do we evaluate outcomes with feasible, valid and reliable methods? / Isaksen, Jytte; Jensen, Lise Randrup.

2016. Abstract from International Aphasia Rehabilitation Conference, London, United Kingdom.

Research output: Contribution to conferenceConference abstract for conferenceResearchpeer-review

Harvard

Isaksen, J & Jensen, LR 2016, 'Measuring outcomes of communication partner training of health care professionals: How do we evaluate outcomes with feasible, valid and reliable methods?', International Aphasia Rehabilitation Conference, London, United Kingdom, 14/12/2016 - 16/12/2016.

APA

Isaksen, J., & Jensen, L. R. (2016). Measuring outcomes of communication partner training of health care professionals: How do we evaluate outcomes with feasible, valid and reliable methods?. Abstract from International Aphasia Rehabilitation Conference, London, United Kingdom.

Vancouver

Isaksen J, Jensen LR. Measuring outcomes of communication partner training of health care professionals: How do we evaluate outcomes with feasible, valid and reliable methods?. 2016. Abstract from International Aphasia Rehabilitation Conference, London, United Kingdom.

Author

Isaksen, Jytte ; Jensen, Lise Randrup. / Measuring outcomes of communication partner training of health care professionals: How do we evaluate outcomes with feasible, valid and reliable methods?. Abstract from International Aphasia Rehabilitation Conference, London, United Kingdom.

Bibtex

@conference{ce7f9f033cdd4b2689f5cb3c140b6223,
title = "Measuring outcomes of communication partner training of health care professionals:: How do we evaluate outcomes with feasible, valid and reliable methods?",
abstract = "Background: People with aphasia have greater risks of experiencing adverse events or medical errors in health care settings [1, 2]. Furthermore, people with aphasia often depend crucially on health care professionals’ ability to support their participation in information sharing, decisions about health care, and other communicative exchanges associated with appropriate health care [3]. As a consequence of these challenges in patient-provider communication, implementation of evidence- based methods of communication partner training is becoming increasingly frequent in different health care settings with frequent contact to people with aphasia [4, 5]. In Denmark, for example, the method of Supported Conversation of Adults with Aphasia (SCATM) is in the process of being implemented in more than five hospitals [6, 7]. This raises the question of how the outcomes of training and implementation are best measured in research and in clinical practice in a valid, reliable and feasible manner.Rationale: Research studies have used a variety of outcome measures, including blind ratings of videotaped interactions or self-rating questionnaires for staff [8]. Video rating does not seem feasible with large groups of trainees, e.g. all staff from a ward. Self-rating questionnaires, however, present another set of issues when used as outcome measures, including the need to examine their content validity, reliability and sensitivity to change [9]. This work appears to be lacking for most of the available questionnaires. However, it is important in order to lay the groundwork for future studies, which compare the efficacy and outcome of different methods of implementing conversation partner training in clinical practice.Aims:The overall purpose of this round table is to:1. provide an overview of outcome measures used in research studies of communication partnertraining in health care settings [4, 7];2. present results from three different questionnaires used with health professionals in Denmarkbefore and after communication partner training in order to compare their sensitivity tochange; and3. discuss and brainstorm, how we may design outcome measures for use in both research andclinical practice?Questions to be addressed:1. How are researchers and clinicians currently assessing the outcomes of communication partner training in professional contexts such as hospitals?2. How does this match the intended outcomes of communication partner training in health care settings?3. What are our requirements to outcomes measures after communication partner training in professional contexts, regarding feasibility, validity, reliability and sensitivity? Do clinicians and researchers have different needs?Implications for clinical practice: There is a need to develop different types of outcome measures for communication partner training in the health care context, including questionnaires for health care staff, which address generally agreed-upon problem areas in patient-provider communication and are reliable as measurements as well as sensitive to change after training.",
keywords = "Faculty of Humanities, aohasia, Communication",
author = "Jytte Isaksen and Jensen, {Lise Randrup}",
year = "2016",
language = "English",
note = "International Aphasia Rehabilitation Conference ; Conference date: 14-12-2016 Through 16-12-2016",

}

RIS

TY - ABST

T1 - Measuring outcomes of communication partner training of health care professionals:

T2 - International Aphasia Rehabilitation Conference

AU - Isaksen, Jytte

AU - Jensen, Lise Randrup

N1 - Conference code: 17

PY - 2016

Y1 - 2016

N2 - Background: People with aphasia have greater risks of experiencing adverse events or medical errors in health care settings [1, 2]. Furthermore, people with aphasia often depend crucially on health care professionals’ ability to support their participation in information sharing, decisions about health care, and other communicative exchanges associated with appropriate health care [3]. As a consequence of these challenges in patient-provider communication, implementation of evidence- based methods of communication partner training is becoming increasingly frequent in different health care settings with frequent contact to people with aphasia [4, 5]. In Denmark, for example, the method of Supported Conversation of Adults with Aphasia (SCATM) is in the process of being implemented in more than five hospitals [6, 7]. This raises the question of how the outcomes of training and implementation are best measured in research and in clinical practice in a valid, reliable and feasible manner.Rationale: Research studies have used a variety of outcome measures, including blind ratings of videotaped interactions or self-rating questionnaires for staff [8]. Video rating does not seem feasible with large groups of trainees, e.g. all staff from a ward. Self-rating questionnaires, however, present another set of issues when used as outcome measures, including the need to examine their content validity, reliability and sensitivity to change [9]. This work appears to be lacking for most of the available questionnaires. However, it is important in order to lay the groundwork for future studies, which compare the efficacy and outcome of different methods of implementing conversation partner training in clinical practice.Aims:The overall purpose of this round table is to:1. provide an overview of outcome measures used in research studies of communication partnertraining in health care settings [4, 7];2. present results from three different questionnaires used with health professionals in Denmarkbefore and after communication partner training in order to compare their sensitivity tochange; and3. discuss and brainstorm, how we may design outcome measures for use in both research andclinical practice?Questions to be addressed:1. How are researchers and clinicians currently assessing the outcomes of communication partner training in professional contexts such as hospitals?2. How does this match the intended outcomes of communication partner training in health care settings?3. What are our requirements to outcomes measures after communication partner training in professional contexts, regarding feasibility, validity, reliability and sensitivity? Do clinicians and researchers have different needs?Implications for clinical practice: There is a need to develop different types of outcome measures for communication partner training in the health care context, including questionnaires for health care staff, which address generally agreed-upon problem areas in patient-provider communication and are reliable as measurements as well as sensitive to change after training.

AB - Background: People with aphasia have greater risks of experiencing adverse events or medical errors in health care settings [1, 2]. Furthermore, people with aphasia often depend crucially on health care professionals’ ability to support their participation in information sharing, decisions about health care, and other communicative exchanges associated with appropriate health care [3]. As a consequence of these challenges in patient-provider communication, implementation of evidence- based methods of communication partner training is becoming increasingly frequent in different health care settings with frequent contact to people with aphasia [4, 5]. In Denmark, for example, the method of Supported Conversation of Adults with Aphasia (SCATM) is in the process of being implemented in more than five hospitals [6, 7]. This raises the question of how the outcomes of training and implementation are best measured in research and in clinical practice in a valid, reliable and feasible manner.Rationale: Research studies have used a variety of outcome measures, including blind ratings of videotaped interactions or self-rating questionnaires for staff [8]. Video rating does not seem feasible with large groups of trainees, e.g. all staff from a ward. Self-rating questionnaires, however, present another set of issues when used as outcome measures, including the need to examine their content validity, reliability and sensitivity to change [9]. This work appears to be lacking for most of the available questionnaires. However, it is important in order to lay the groundwork for future studies, which compare the efficacy and outcome of different methods of implementing conversation partner training in clinical practice.Aims:The overall purpose of this round table is to:1. provide an overview of outcome measures used in research studies of communication partnertraining in health care settings [4, 7];2. present results from three different questionnaires used with health professionals in Denmarkbefore and after communication partner training in order to compare their sensitivity tochange; and3. discuss and brainstorm, how we may design outcome measures for use in both research andclinical practice?Questions to be addressed:1. How are researchers and clinicians currently assessing the outcomes of communication partner training in professional contexts such as hospitals?2. How does this match the intended outcomes of communication partner training in health care settings?3. What are our requirements to outcomes measures after communication partner training in professional contexts, regarding feasibility, validity, reliability and sensitivity? Do clinicians and researchers have different needs?Implications for clinical practice: There is a need to develop different types of outcome measures for communication partner training in the health care context, including questionnaires for health care staff, which address generally agreed-upon problem areas in patient-provider communication and are reliable as measurements as well as sensitive to change after training.

KW - Faculty of Humanities

KW - aohasia

KW - Communication

UR - http://www.city.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/337338/Parallel-Sessions-mini-booklet.pdf

M3 - Conference abstract for conference

Y2 - 14 December 2016 through 16 December 2016

ER -

ID: 168840906