ArticleBMC health services research2019
Evaluation of a community of practice for speech-language pathologists in aphasia rehabilitation: a logic analysis.
Article in BMC health services research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Speech-Language Pathologists' Perceptions of Their Competence in Managing Stuttering: A Systematic Review with Narrative Synthesis.International journal of language & communication disordersPooled it
- Knowledge, attitudes, and practices towards aphasia among healthcare workers in Anhui, China: a cross-sectional survey.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- How can a community of practice support healthcare professionals navigating new roles? a case study of genetic counsellors employed to work in medical specialities.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- Factors influencing knowledge sharing between scientific specialists in knowledge networks and communities of practice: A systematic literature review.Journal of education and health promotion · 2024Review
- Understanding needs and expectations to start effective communities of practice.BMC health services research · 2023Article
- Factors that influence the provision of home-based rehabilitation services for people needing rehabilitation: a qualitative evidence synthesis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023Review
- Therapists' perspectives on using brain-computer interface-triggered functional electrical stimulation therapy for individuals living with upper extremity paralysis: a qualitative case series study.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2022Article
- Implementation of Virtual Communities of Practice in Healthcare to Improve Capability and Capacity: A 10-Year Scoping Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Implementation Science Research in Communication Sciences and Disorders: A Scoping Review.American journal of speech-language pathology · 2022Article
- Are communities of practice a way to support health literacy: a study protocol for a realist review.BMJ open · 2021Article
- Predicting Communicative Participation in Adults Across Communication Disorders.American journal of speech-language pathology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAphasia is a communication disorder affecting participation. Although there are evidence-based practice recommendations about participation and aphasia rehabilitation, it may be challenging for speech-language pathologists to ensure that rehabilitation activities have an impact on the person's participation, in part due to time limitations. Participation remains limited after rehabilitation for persons who have aphasia. Communities of practice (CoPs) are a collaborative knowledge transfer strategy that can be used for evidence-based practice implementation. The aim of this study was to describe the components and evaluate a CoP for speech-language pathologists about participation and aphasia rehabilitation.
methodsLogic analysis was used to determine the adequacy between resources, implemented activities, outputs and short-term outcomes of the CoP. Qualitative and quantitative descriptive data were collected through observation and participants' logbooks. Outputs and outcomes of the CoP were revealed through thematic analysis and interpretation of descriptive statistics.
resultsResources including CoP design and educational aims, human and material resources were combined to create various web-based, online and offline activities. Participants invested more time per week than expected in the CoP, shared and created clinical tools and appreciated the array of suggested activities. Participant engagement allowed them to reflect, interact and collaborate with each other. All 13 participants reported they acquired knowledge about clinical tools and 12 mentioned they reflected on their practice. While the CoP was ongoing, six participants noticed evidence-practice gaps, seven prepared to change their practice, and three changed their practice towards including more participation-based considerations.
conclusionsThis study showed that speech-language pathologists can include more participation-based approaches in aphasia rehabilitation as a result of participating in a time-bound, web-based CoP.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.