Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T14:17:12.389Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Strategies to Improve Research Outcomes in the Field of Acquired Brain Injury: The Kevin Bacon Effect, Networking and Other Stories

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 October 2012

Leanne Togher
Leanne Togher*
Affiliation:
Speech Pathology, Faculty of Health Sciences, The University of Sydney, Australia Clinical Centre of Research Excellence in Aphasia Rehabilitation, PO Box 170, Lidcombe, NSW 2141, Australia
*
Address for correspondence: Professor Leanne Togher, NHMRC Senior Research Fellow, Speech Pathology, Faculty of Health Sciences, The University of Sydney, Australia. Email: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

This paper describes the added value that arises from capitalising on academic and social networks for researchers and people with acquired brain injury. First, it is proposed that brain injury researchers are connected within six degrees of separation. As a model, ‘The Oracle of Bacon’ demonstrates how any actor can be linked through his or her film roles to the actor Kevin Bacon within six steps. This concept is extrapolated to the existing networks of brain injury researchers. Capitalising on these networks can lead to potent and ground-breaking discoveries. The Clinical Centre of Research Excellence (CCRE) in Aphasia Rehabilitation provides an example of the benefits of networking and collaboration in the quest to improve the lives of people with aphasia. The CCRE uses multiple theoretical perspectives in studies evaluating the assessment and treatment of aphasia. It is utilising capacity building, knowledge translation and a community of practice to inform and expand research capacity. Networks can also be used to improve the communication of people with brain injury within their everyday environment. A recent study is described where communication partners were trained to improve the interactions of people with traumatic brain injury, which led to improvements in social networks and improved engagement in life activities. Finally, it is suggested that with the advances in e-communication, there is a great deal of scope for the use of social networking technologies in the assessment and treatment of people with acquired brain injury.

Keywords

networkingaphasiatraumatic brain injurycognitive-communication
Type
ASSBI Presidential Address 2011
Information
Brain Impairment , Volume 13 , Issue 2 , September 2012 , pp. 271 - 280
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Allen, D., & Rixson, L. (2008). How has the impact of ‘care pathway technologies’ on service integration in stroke care been measured and what is the strength of the evidence to support their effectiveness in this respect? International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare, 6 (1), 78–110.Google ScholarPubMed
Andrew, N., Tolson, D., & Ferguson, D. (2008). Building on Wenger: Communities of practice in nursing. Nurse Education Today, 28 (2), 246–252.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dahlberg, C.A., Cusick, C.P., Hawley, L.A., Newman, J.K., Morey, C.E., Harrison-Felix, C.L., & Whiteneck, G.G. (2007). Treatment efficacy of social communication skills training after traumatic brain injury: a randomized treatment and deferred treatment controlled trial. [Randomized Controlled Trial Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S.]. Archives of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, 88 (12), 1561–1573.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dardier, V., Bernicot, J., Delanoë, A., Vanberten, M.I., Fayada, C., Chevignard, M., . . . Dubois, B. (2011). Severe traumatic brain injury, frontal lesions, and social aspects of language use: A study of French-speaking adults. Journal of Communication Disorders, 44 (3), 359–378.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Davidson, B., Howe, T., Worrall, L., Hickson, L., & Togher, L. (2008). Social participation for older people with aphasia: The impact of communication disability on friendships. Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation, 15 (4), 325–340.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gan, C., Gargaro, J., Brandys, C., Gerber, G., & Boschen, K. (2010). Family caregivers’ support needs after brain injury: A synthesis of perspectives from caregivers, programs, and researchers. NeuroRehabilitation, 27 (1), 5–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gonzalez Rothi, L.J., Musson, N., Rosenbek, J.C., & Sapienza, C.M. (2008). Neuroplasticity and rehabilitation research for speech, language and swallowing disorders. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 51 (Suppl), S222–S224.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hydo, B. (1995). Designing an effective clinical pathway for stroke. The American Journal of Nursing, 95 (3), 44–51.Google ScholarPubMed
Kagan, A., Simmons-Mackie, N., Rowland, A., Huijbregts, M., Shumway, E., McEwen, S., . . . Sharp, S. (2008). Counting what counts: A framework for capturing real-life outcomes of aphasia intervention. Aphasiology, 22 (3), 258–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karinthy, F. (Producer). (1929) Chain-Links. Translated from Hungarian and annotated by Adam Makkai and Enikö Jankó. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_degrees_of_separation (2 August 2012).Google Scholar
Kleim, J.A., & Jones, T.A. (2008). Principles of experience-dependent neural plasticity: Implications for rehabilitation after brain damage. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 51 (Suppl), S225–S239.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kwan, J., & Sandercock, P. (2005). In-hospital care pathways for stroke: An updated systematic review. Stroke, 36 (6), 1348–1349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, N., Thompson, C., & Worrall, L. (2008). Aphasia rehabilitation: The impairment and its consequences. San Diego, CA: Plural.Google Scholar
McDonald, S., Tate, R., Togher, L., Bornhofen, C., Long, E., Gertler, P., & Bowen, R. (2008). Social skills treatment for people with severe, chronic acquired brain injuries: A multicenter trial. Archives of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, 89, 1648–1659.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mentis, M., & Prutting, C.A. (1991). Analysis of topic as illustrated in a head-injured and a normal adult. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 34, 583–595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nickels, L. (2002). Therapy for naming disorders: Revisiting, revising, and reviewing. Aphasiology, 16 (10–11), 935–979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raymer, A.M., Beeson, P., Holland, A., Kendall, D., Maher, L.M., Martin, N., . . . Gonzalez Rothi, L.J. (2008). Translational research in aphasia: From neuroscience to neurorehabilitation. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 51 (Suppl), S259–S275.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shorland, J., & Douglas, J.M. (2010). Understanding the role of communication in maintaining and forming friendships following traumatic brain injury. Brain Injury, 24 (4), 569–580.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Simmons-Mackie, N., & Kagan, A. (2007). Application of the ICF in aphasia. Seminars in Speech and Language, 28 (4), 244–253.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Simmons-Mackie, N.N., & Damico, J.S. (2007). Access and social inclusion in aphasia: Interactional principles and applications. Aphasiology, 21 (1), 81–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stucki, G., & Grimby, G. (2007). Organizing human functioning and rehabilitation research into distinct scientific fields: Part I: Developing a comprehensive structure from the cell to society. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 39, 293–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stucki, G., Reinhardt, J.D., & Grimby, G. (2007). Organizing human functioning and rehabilitation research into distinct scientific fields. Part II: Conceptual descriptions and domains for research. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 39, 299–307.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Togher, L., & Grant, S. (1998). Community policing: a training program for police in how to communicate with people with traumatic brain injury. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Togher, L., & Hand, L. (1999). The macrostructure of the interview: Are traumatic brain injury interactions structured differently to control interactions? Aphasiology, 13 (9–11), 709–723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Togher, L., Hand, L., & Code, C. (1997). Analysing discourse in the traumatic brain injury population: telephone interactions with different communication partners. Brain Injury, 11 (3), 169–189.Google ScholarPubMed
Togher, L., McDonald, S., Code, C., & Grant, S. (2004). Training communication partners of people with traumatic brain injury: a randomised controlled trial. Aphasiology, 18 (4), 313–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Togher, L., Power, E., Riedijk, R., McDonald, S., & Tate, R. (2012). An exploration of participant experience of communication training programs for people with traumatic brain injury and their communication partners. Disability and Rehabilitation, 34 (18), 1562–1574.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: learning as a social system. The Systems Thinker, 9 (5).Google Scholar
WHO. (2001). ICF: International classification of functioning, disability and health. Geneva: World Health Organisation.Google Scholar
Wisker, G., Robinson, R., & Shacham, M. (2007). Postgraduate research success: communities of practice involving cohorts, guardian supervisors and online communities. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 44 (3), 301–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ylvisaker, M., Sellars, C., & Edelman, L. (1998). Rehabilitation after traumatic brain injury in preschoolers. In Ylvisaker, M. (Ed.), Traumatic brain injury rehabilitation. Children and adolescents (pp. 303–329). Newton, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann.Google Scholar
Ylvisaker, M., Turkstra, L.S., & Coelho, C.A. (2005). Behavioral and social interventions for individuals with traumatic brain injury: A summary of the research with clinical implications. Seminars in Speech & Language, 26 (4), 256–267.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed