Clinicians’ views on cognitive assessment with Aboriginal Australians

Author:

Hindman Emily123ORCID,Hassmén Peter2,Orchard Abbey2,Radford Kylie2345,Delbaere Kim346,Garvey Gail7

Affiliation:

1. Coffs Harbour Aboriginal Community Care Inc. (ABCARE), Coffs Harbour, NSW, Australia

2. Faculty of Health, Southern Cross University, Coffs Harbour, NSW, Australia

3. Neuroscience Research Australia, Randwick, NSW, Australia

4. Ageing Futures Institute, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia

5. School of Psychology, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia

6. School of Population Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia

7. School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Herston, QLD, Australia

Abstract

Background: A shortage of standardised cognitive assessment tools for use with Aboriginal Australians is evident. Clinicians also miss the range of guidelines necessary to inform test selection and interpretation for all Aboriginal clients. This mixed methods study examines clinicians’ confidence, views and current practices when conducting cognitive assessments with Aboriginal Australian clients. Methods: Clinicians were asked about factors that influence their likelihood of using standardised testing in Aboriginal vs non-Indigenous Australian people. Twenty-one health professionals with experience conducting cognitive assessments with Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Australians participated. Clinicians were presented with a series of different scenarios per the client’s level of education and language of origin via an online survey. Clinicians rated their likelihood and confidence using standardised cognitive assessment for each scenario. Open-ended questions captured clinicians’ views and information about their current clinical practices. Results: Clients’ age, education and language of origin influence the likelihood of clinicians’ use of standardised cognitive assessment measures with Aboriginal people. Overall, clinicians reported feeling only slightly more confident working with non-Indigenous clients than Aboriginal clients. Qualitative data indicate a lack of consistency regarding test selection. Conclusion: Clinicians expressed concerns about the validity of available cognitive assessment tools for use with Aboriginal Australians and the absence of evidence to assist decision-making. Cited barriers included language, educational attainment and cultural factors.

Publisher

SAGE Publications

Subject

Psychiatry and Mental health,General Medicine

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3