Using DMM F amily F unc tional F or mulations in inte r ve ntions for c hildr e n with ne ur ode ve lopme ntal disor de r s Andr e a L andini, Be atr ic e Be r te lli & Silvia Moniga (Italy)
T wo c e nte r s for tr e atme nt of ne ur ode ve lopme ntal disor de r s • A ra ng e o f diso rde rs, o f diffe re nt se ve rity, fro m a utism to me nta l re ta rda tio n (c hro mo so mic a no ma lie s a nd o the r c a use s), to le a rning disa b ilitie s to la ng ua g e de la y • Sta ff fe e ls a ne e d fo r supe rvisio n: ne uro psyc ho lo g ic a l dia g no sis no t g uiding so me c ritic a l a spe c ts o f inte rve ntio n
Que stions ar ising fr om pr ac tic e • Ho w to wo rk o n re la tio nships, whe n the fa mily pro b le m is fo c use d o n the func tio ning o f the c hild? • As mo st fa milie s do n’ t fo llo w up o n re fe rra ls to psyc ho the ra pists (a nd so me psyc ho the ra pists re se nt re fe rra ls do ne b y c o lle a g ue s, a nd no t b y the fa milie s the mse lve s) wha t a re the a lte rna tive s?
A r e se ar c h que stion • Do e s the DMM F a mily F unc tio na l F o rmula tio n (F F F ) impro ve the e ffic a c y o f tre a tme nt o f ne uro - de ve lo pme nta l diso rde rs?
T wo gr oups c ompar e d • 1) T re a tme nt a s usua l, inc luding : • tho ro ug h ne uro psyc ho lo g ic a l a sse ssme nt, • re ha b ilita tive tre a tme nt, • a c tiva tio n o f a dditio na l psyc ho lo g ic a l a nd me dic a l tre a tme nts 2) F F F a dde d to a sse ssme nt •
Compar isons: 1. Re c o ve re d func tio na lity (me a sura b le ) 2. Suc c e ss o f inte rve ntio n a s pe rc e ive d b y the fa mily 3. Suc c e ss o f inte rve ntio n a s pe rc e ive d b y the sta ff 4. Ada pta tio n o f the fa mily • in g e ne ra l • re g a rding the inte rve ntio n
Cur r e nt state of pr oje c t • E xisting c a se lo a d (a b o ut 40) a sse sse d fo r e ffe c ts o f inte rve ntio n a nd sta te o f fa mily a da pta tio n • I nc o ming c a se s (18 so fa r): • a re g ive n DMM a sse ssme nts a nd a n F F F is c o nstruc te d • will b e a sse sse d a fte r c o mpa ra b le time o f inte rve ntio n
What we have le ar ne d so far • Giving the a sse ssme nts: no t a me c ha nic a l pro c e ss, re q uire s tho ug ht a nd dia lo g ue with the fa mily (risk o f dro p o ut). • Mo re re fle c tive a b ilitie s in pa re nts = le ss c o mplia nc e to pro po se d tre a tme nts.
What we have le ar ne d so far • Whe n o ne pa re nt mo re re fle c tive (B o r R B), the o the r ta ke s the le a de rship. • Re la tio nship issue s do no t ne c e ssa rily re q uire a no the r inte rve ntio n: diffe re nt wa ys o f c a rrying o ut re ha b ilita tive inte rve ntio ns c a n ha ve e ffe c ts o n fa mily o rg a niza tio n.
T hank you
Recommend
More recommend
