RESUMO
PURPOSE: The primary aim of this paper was to identify and describe current social communication assessment tools for adults with traumatic brain injury. METHOD: We conducted a state-of-the-art review to identify and categorise the range of social communication assessment tools found in the assessment and treatment literature that revealed 42 measures that were coded according to characteristics related to assessment types, psychometrics, and implementation. RESULT: Of the 42 assessments, 64% evaluated social cognition and the remaining 36% evaluated communication. Coding of implementation categories revealed that only 18/42 (43%) measures were ecologically grounded and 23/42 (55%) were available to clinicians by purchase or in the public domain. Only three measures incorporated questions or an assessment of the examinee's priorities or concerns. CONCLUSION: A number of factors limit current social communication assessment. The lack of tools that objectively and reliably evaluate communication or social cognition in ecologically valid ways remains problematic. Of particular concern is the lack of prioritisation of the individual's communication values and needs. Recommendations include a call to focus research on the development of more contextual, standardised assessments, consider availability and feasibility when tools are being developed, and evaluate assessment processes as well as discrete tools.
Assuntos
Lesões Encefálicas Traumáticas/diagnóstico , Encéfalo/fisiopatologia , Comunicação , Comportamento Social , Transtorno de Comunicação Social/diagnóstico , Patologia da Fala e Linguagem/métodos , Lesões Encefálicas Traumáticas/fisiopatologia , Lesões Encefálicas Traumáticas/psicologia , Lesões Encefálicas Traumáticas/terapia , Cognição , Humanos , Valor Preditivo dos Testes , Prognóstico , Transtorno de Comunicação Social/fisiopatologia , Transtorno de Comunicação Social/psicologia , Transtorno de Comunicação Social/terapiaRESUMO
PURPOSE: This article proposes a theoretical framework to help professionals include family as active members in brain injury rehabilitation. A trend towards greater family involvement has lead to the development of family-collaboration models. However, current models appear to focus on information sharing rather than increasing the capability of family members. This article introduces a family-directed approach to brain injury model, which provides a theoretical framework for supporting family as facilitators of change. METHODS: Family-collaboration models and literature regarding family experiences following brain injury and support needs are reviewed to identify the driving forces behind family engagement in rehabilitation, including effective professional-family relationships, and important factors in the delivery of education underpinned by evidence-based practices. RESULTS: The family-directed approach to brain injury model is based on principles of hope, family expertise, education/skill building, and family-directed intervention. CONCLUSIONS: The family-directed approach to brain injury model provides a theoretical framework for educating and training family members as facilitators in the management process: promoting competence rather than dependency on service systems. Guiding recommendations encourage professionals to reflect on the importance of their therapeutic relationships and their capacity to positively impact rehabilitation outcomes beyond the technical aspects of health care and treatment. Implications for Rehabilitation Training family members as facilitators in the rehabilitation process is suggested to reduce dependency on the service system, address families' unmet support needs, and to optimize rehabilitation outcomes for individuals with brain injury. The family-directed approach to brain injury model is proposed to guide the increased involvement of family as active members in the rehabilitation team and to define potential active ingredients in this process.