کرج در درختی | جستجو گسترده در آدرس مراکز جامع کاردرمانی کرج در میدان عطار | جستجو گسترده در آدرس مراکز جامع کاردرمانی کرج در گلزار | جستجو گسترده در آدرس مراکز جامع کاردرمانی کرج در انوشیروان | جستجو گسترده در آدرس مراکز جامع کاردرمانی کرج در
Is it within our scope of practice to carry out specific stress reduction treatments?
- Is there a sufficient evidence base tying stress reduction to improvements in cognitive and linguistic abilities in people with specific etiologies?
Promoting healthful living for the prevention of neurological disorders and for lessening their impacts on life par¬ticipation is a critical aspect of our role as advocates. Many authors have shown
how participating in socially engaging and health-promoting activities can boost cognitive-linguistic intervention. Exam¬ples are exercise, volunteer work, singing, listening to and playing music, dancing, interaction with animals, playing games, cooking, and art- and craft-based activi¬ties (for wonderful examples, see Beard, 2012; Brotons & Koger, 2000; Horowitz, 2013; Hurkmans et al., 2012; LaFrance, Garcia, & Labreche, 2007; Luckowski, 2014; Macauley, 2006; Mahendra & Arkin, 2003, 2004; Schneider & Camp, 2003; and Stallings, 2010; also consider the general approaches to intervention in Chapter 25). All of these types of activities can be car¬ried out during or in addition to SLP treatments, in cotreatments with other professionals, and through caregiver and volunteer facilitation. Still, many of the methods associated with complementary approaches are more definitively outside of our scope of practice and not incorpo¬rated into most SLP educational programs. The latter are the focus of this chapter.
In clinical practice environments world-wide, there is increasing likelihood that we will play a consultative role in helping people with neurogenic communication disorders consider complementary options to direct behavioral intervention to im¬prove or slow declines in speech, language, and cognition. Popularity of such options is long-standing in Eastern regions and is increasing steadily in the West (Park,
Braun, & Siegel, 2015; Shah, Engelhardt, & Ovbiagele, 2008). Many of the people we serve clinically are likely to be engaged in some form of complementary treatment or practice (Lundgren, 2004). Most clini¬cians in training to become SLPs have some experience with complementary and alternative modalities in their own self-care (Marshall & Laures-Gore, 2008). Some clinical SLPs advocate passion¬ately for the integration of commentary approaches to communication disorders within SLP curricula (Marshall & Basila- kos, 2014).
Several trends seem to be working together to increase global interest in the search for complementary and integrative approaches to neurogenic communica¬tion disorders. These include frustration with current options, increasing aware¬ness, expanded funding for nonallopathic services, a growing evidence base, and aggressive commercial mark