Assessment and treatment of spatial neglect in current clinical practise – a nationwide Internet survey

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskrift/Konferencebidrag i tidsskrift /Bidrag til avisKonferenceabstrakt i tidsskriftForskningpeer review

Standard

Assessment and treatment of spatial neglect in current clinical practise – a nationwide Internet survey. / Evald, Lars; Wilms, Inge ; Nordfang, Maria.

I: Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair, Bind 35, Nr. 4, P0163, 04.2021.

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskrift/Konferencebidrag i tidsskrift /Bidrag til avisKonferenceabstrakt i tidsskriftForskningpeer review

Harvard

APA

CBE

MLA

Vancouver

Author

Evald, Lars ; Wilms, Inge ; Nordfang, Maria. / Assessment and treatment of spatial neglect in current clinical practise – a nationwide Internet survey. I: Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair. 2021 ; Bind 35, Nr. 4.

Bibtex

@article{3b5838da8817456ca780196e5bda15c8,
title = "Assessment and treatment of spatial neglect in current clinical practise – a nationwide Internet survey",
abstract = "Question: How well does knowledge from scientific literature on the assessment and treatment of spatial neglect (SN) translate into clinical practise?Methods: A nationwide, anonymous, open Internet survey was conducted among healthcare professionals working with brain injured patients across all sectors in Denmark.Results: 525 healthcare professionals participated in the survey of which 81.5% reported that they assess SN and 78.3% reported that they treat SN at their institution.Occupational therapists and psychologists were most often involved in the assessment, while nurses, social and health assistants, and speech therapists were least involved. Subjective observations were the most frequently used method of assessment. Conversely, systematic ADL observations, paper-and-pencil tests, confrontational tests and computerized tests were less often used (Figure 1). Assessment methods and knowledge on SN subtypes and differential diagnoses differed considerably between professions.Occupational and physiotherapists were most often involved in the treatment, whereas psychologists, speech therapists and medical doctors were least involved. Treatment was most commonly training of activities of daily living (ADL). Less frequently reported were evidence-based methods such as prism adaptation and visual scanning (Figure 2). The SN treatment methods and intensity varied considerably across sectors.Conclusion: The level of knowledge on assessment and treatment methods vary considerably between healthcare professional and sectors. The consequence may be underdiagnosis and underuse of evidence based assessment and treatment approaches in SN rehabilitation.These results call for international multidisciplinary clinical guidelines for the assessment of SN subtypes and differential diagnostics as well as for the tailoring of treatment approaches to the individual patient and treatment of SN at different stages of rehabilitation.",
author = "Lars Evald and Inge Wilms and Maria Nordfang",
year = "2021",
month = apr,
doi = "10.1177/1545968320988381",
language = "English",
volume = "35",
journal = "Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair",
issn = "1545-9683",
publisher = "Sage Publications, Inc.",
number = "4",
note = "null ; Conference date: 07-10-2020 Through 11-10-2020",

}

RIS

TY - ABST

T1 - Assessment and treatment of spatial neglect in current clinical practise – a nationwide Internet survey

AU - Evald, Lars

AU - Wilms, Inge

AU - Nordfang, Maria

PY - 2021/4

Y1 - 2021/4

N2 - Question: How well does knowledge from scientific literature on the assessment and treatment of spatial neglect (SN) translate into clinical practise?Methods: A nationwide, anonymous, open Internet survey was conducted among healthcare professionals working with brain injured patients across all sectors in Denmark.Results: 525 healthcare professionals participated in the survey of which 81.5% reported that they assess SN and 78.3% reported that they treat SN at their institution.Occupational therapists and psychologists were most often involved in the assessment, while nurses, social and health assistants, and speech therapists were least involved. Subjective observations were the most frequently used method of assessment. Conversely, systematic ADL observations, paper-and-pencil tests, confrontational tests and computerized tests were less often used (Figure 1). Assessment methods and knowledge on SN subtypes and differential diagnoses differed considerably between professions.Occupational and physiotherapists were most often involved in the treatment, whereas psychologists, speech therapists and medical doctors were least involved. Treatment was most commonly training of activities of daily living (ADL). Less frequently reported were evidence-based methods such as prism adaptation and visual scanning (Figure 2). The SN treatment methods and intensity varied considerably across sectors.Conclusion: The level of knowledge on assessment and treatment methods vary considerably between healthcare professional and sectors. The consequence may be underdiagnosis and underuse of evidence based assessment and treatment approaches in SN rehabilitation.These results call for international multidisciplinary clinical guidelines for the assessment of SN subtypes and differential diagnostics as well as for the tailoring of treatment approaches to the individual patient and treatment of SN at different stages of rehabilitation.

AB - Question: How well does knowledge from scientific literature on the assessment and treatment of spatial neglect (SN) translate into clinical practise?Methods: A nationwide, anonymous, open Internet survey was conducted among healthcare professionals working with brain injured patients across all sectors in Denmark.Results: 525 healthcare professionals participated in the survey of which 81.5% reported that they assess SN and 78.3% reported that they treat SN at their institution.Occupational therapists and psychologists were most often involved in the assessment, while nurses, social and health assistants, and speech therapists were least involved. Subjective observations were the most frequently used method of assessment. Conversely, systematic ADL observations, paper-and-pencil tests, confrontational tests and computerized tests were less often used (Figure 1). Assessment methods and knowledge on SN subtypes and differential diagnoses differed considerably between professions.Occupational and physiotherapists were most often involved in the treatment, whereas psychologists, speech therapists and medical doctors were least involved. Treatment was most commonly training of activities of daily living (ADL). Less frequently reported were evidence-based methods such as prism adaptation and visual scanning (Figure 2). The SN treatment methods and intensity varied considerably across sectors.Conclusion: The level of knowledge on assessment and treatment methods vary considerably between healthcare professional and sectors. The consequence may be underdiagnosis and underuse of evidence based assessment and treatment approaches in SN rehabilitation.These results call for international multidisciplinary clinical guidelines for the assessment of SN subtypes and differential diagnostics as well as for the tailoring of treatment approaches to the individual patient and treatment of SN at different stages of rehabilitation.

U2 - 10.1177/1545968320988381

DO - 10.1177/1545968320988381

M3 - Conference abstract in journal

VL - 35

JO - Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair

JF - Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair

SN - 1545-9683

IS - 4

M1 - P0163

Y2 - 7 October 2020 through 11 October 2020

ER -