Editorial

Citation

Nicholl, D.M. (2014), "Editorial", Social Care and Neurodisability, Vol. 5 No. 1. https://doi.org/10.1108/SCN-12-2013-0044

Editorial

Article Type: Editorial From: Social Care and Neurodisability, Volume 5, Issue 1.

Welcome to Issue 5.1 of Social Care and Neurodisability. This quarterly Journal aims to be a single source of knowledge on legislation, best practice and research for those working with and affected by neurological conditions.

On this occasion I have some very good news to pass on to you about the Journal and its status within the literature. Recently Social Care and Neurodisability was accepted for inclusion in Scopus. For those of you who are unfamiliar with Scopus it is the largest abstract and citation database of peer reviewed literature and research in the world. Scopus has been monitoring the contents of the Journal over the past two years in terms of its quality and contribution to the knowledge base. This monitoring exercise resulted in the Journal's acceptance onto the database. This is a major step in the development of Social Care and Neurodisability. It is the result of the hard work of a number of people, including those at Emerald Publishing, particularly Jo Sharrocks and Emma Steele, and members of the Editorial Board. I would like also to acknowledge the work of the original editors of the Journal, namely Patti Simonson and Andy Mantell. However, I think first this important achievement is due to you, the readership, and second those who have contributed articles and research for the Journal. I am grateful to all those who have made a contribution and hope they will continue to do so in the future. Being cited in Scopus gives past and future papers further academic, clinical and professional credibility.

All the papers in this issue are research papers and several of them, I am pleased to say, use qualitative methodologies. The issue begins with an extremely informative and timely paper by Janet McCray and Adam Palmer who consider the commissioning of personalised care in the English Adult Social Care sector. They explore the qualifications, standards and developmental needs required for leaders preparing to meet the demands of commissioning and commissioned personalised care across service user groups. They use the dynamic method of Action Research; which increases the possibility of the research itself being transformative.

The paper by Fergus Gracey, Donna Malley, Adam Wagner and Isabel Clare is a welcome contribution in understanding and further distinguishing subgroups of people with long-term sequelae to acquired brain injuries who use rehabilitation services. This in turn, they argue persuasively, allows for more accurate and earlier identification of each individual's rehabilitation needs and to meet those needs more effectively.

The research by Jonathan Williams, Frances Vaughan, Jaci Huws and Richard Hastings focuses on familial caregivers, in particular partners. This research is primarily an exploration of the utility of what might be referred to as a “third generation” cognitive-behavioural approach, namely Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT), in a group setting for partners and care givers, in particular helping them deal with the often complicated and difficult feelings about their situation and injured relatives. It highlights the potential for further developments, including the use of ACT, as a therapeutic approach.

Many people who have suffered traumatic brain injuries will be assessed by Clinical Neuropsychologists and, for children, Paediatric Clinical Neuropsychologists. There does not exist a great deal of information about the quality of these services and the experiences of those who use them. The paper by Daniel Stark, Sophie Thomas, David Dawson, Emily Talbot, Emily Bennett and Arleta Starza-Smith relates to an investigation into parents’ experiences of such services. A mixed methodological approach was used, including questionnaires and semi-structured interviews, applying a thematic analysis to the latter. Because of its qualitative approach this study is perhaps the first of its kind, or at least the first of its kind to be published, and sets out to overcome the limitations of other questionnaire only based studies which have been conducted in the USA. The findings are of interest not just to Paediatric Neuropsychologists and Neuropsychologists in general but provide insights for all professions as to what might be valued by the parents of children who use services.

Continuing with the theme of children and brain injury the paper by Damith Woods, Cathy Catroppa, Celia Godfrey, Rebecca Giallo, Jan Matthews and Vicki Anderson addresses a telehealth intervention endeavouring to help parents learn positive parenting skills using a manualised programme and telephone support. The results of this study give some support for this approach and, as such, has implications for service delivery, particularly with communities who are geographically isolated.

Speaking of technology, Keith Jenkins’ regular Forum section addresses some of the issues associated with and availability of technology to support people with neurodisabilities. This is a growing field and something increasingly providers are taking seriously. As usual Keith, gives a roundup of some up and coming events which the reader might find of interest.

I hope you enjoy this issue. As always I welcome feedback on any aspect of the issue and the Journal in general. Please feel free to contact me if you so wish.

Declan Mc Nicholl