Current practices and beliefs regarding supporting dating skills in rehabilitation for traumatic brain injury: a survey study

Figures & data

Table 1. Participants’ demographic and professional characteristics (n = 125)

Variable	N	%
Gender
Male Female	18 107	14.4% 85.6%
Age
20–30 years 31–40 years 41–50 years 51–60 years 61–65 years >65 years	12 36 51 20 4 2	9.6% 28.8% 40.8% 16.0% 3.2% 1.6%
Profession
Speech and Language Therapist Occupational Therapist Physiotherapist Case Manager Social Worker Psychologist Nurse Other	39 27 7 21 6 18 4 3	31.2% 21.6% 5.6% 16.8% 4.8% 14.4% 3.2% 2.4%
Sector
Private Public	84 41	67.2% 32.8%
Location of work
Inpatient rehabilitation Residential rehabilitation Outpatient or community Other	33 13 75 4	24.2% 10.8% 61.7% 3.2%
Years since graduation
0–5 years 6–10 years 11–15 years 16–20 years >20 years	9 21 23 21 51	7.2% 16.8% 18.4% 16.4% 40.8%
Amount of time working in rehabilitation
<1 year 1–5 years 6–10 years 11–15 years 16–20 years >20 years	4 28 23 29 21 20	3.2% 22.4% 18.4% 23.2% 16.8% 16.0%

Figure 1. Perception of the proportion of adults with TBI who would have difficulties dating

Table 2. Dating is an important part of rehabilitation after TBI

	Strongly agree	Agree	Disagree	Strongly disagree
SLT	11 (28.2%)	26 (66.7%)	2 (5.1%)	0
OT	15 (55.6%)	10 (37%)	1 (3.7%)	1 (3.7%)
PT	1 (14.3%)	6 (85.7%)	0	0
Social Worker	4 (66.7%)	2 (33.3%)	0	0
Case Manager	15 (71.4%)	6 (28.6%)	0	0
Psychologist	8 (44.4%)	10 (55.6%)	0	0
Nurse	3 (75%)	1 (25%)	0	0
Other	1 (33.3%)	1 (33.3%)	1 (33.3%)	0
Total	46.4%	49.6%	3.2%	0.8%

Table 3. Is rehabilitation for dating skills an important part of your role?

	Strongly agree	Agree	Disagree	Strongly disagree
SLT	8 (20.5%)	26 (66.7%)	4 (10.3%)	1 (2.6%)
OT	9 (33.3%)	16 (59.3%)	2 (7.4%)	0
PT	0	6 (85.7%)	1 (14.3%)	0
Social Worker	1 (16.7%)	3 (50%)	2 (33.3%)	0
Case Manager	8 (38.1%)	12 (57.1%)	1 (4.8%)	0
Psychologist	6 (33.3%)	9 (50%)	3 (16.7%)	0
Nurse	3 (75%)	1 (25%)	0	0
Other	1 (33.3%)	0	1 (33.3%)	1 (33.3%)
Total	29.2%	59.2%	10.8%	0.8%

Figure 2. Confidence and comfort levels

Table 4. Do you have sufficient knowledge to support adults with TBI to learn skills for dating?

	Yes	No
SLT	11 (28.2%)	28 (71.8%)
OT	15 (55.6%)	12 (44.4%)
PT	0	7 (100%)
Case manager	11 (52.4%)	10 (47.6%)
Social worker	1 (16.7%)	5 (83.3%)
Psychologist	9 (50%)	9 (50%)
Nurse	3 (75%)	1 (25%)
Other	1 (33.3%)	2 (66.7%)
Total	51 (40.8%)	74 (59.2%)

Table 5., Therapeutic activities for dating skills

Activity	Total reported use	Very frequently	Frequently	Occasionally	Rarely	Never
Sexualized/ disinhibited behavior	106 (84.8%)	21 (16.8%)	38 (30.4%)	37 (29.6%)	10 (8%)	19 (15.2%)
Interaction style with new people	114 (91.2%)	28 (22.4%)	42 (33.6%)	36 (28.8%)	8 (6.4%)	11 (8.8%)
How to meet new people	108 (86.4%)	18 (14.4%)	33 (26.4%)	42 (33.6%)	15 (12%)	17 (13.6%)
Types of relationships	103 (82.4%)	12 (9.6%)	24 (19.2%)	46 (36.8%)	21 (16.8%)	22 (17.6%)
Appropriateness of dating partners	101 (80.8%)	12 (9.6%)	22 (17.6%)	47 (38.6%)	20 (16%)	24 (19.2%)
Education on healthy relationships	98 (78.4%)	11 (8.8%)	24 (19.2%)	43 (34.4%)	20 (16%)	27 (21.6%)
Interaction style for dating partners	96 (76.8%)	13 (10.4%)	21 (16.8%)	39 (31.2%)	23 (18.4%)	29 (23.2%)
Sex	85 (68%)	8 (6.4%)	16 (12.8%)	34 (27.2%)	27 (21.6%)	40 (32%)
Coping with rejection	82 (65.6%)	7 (5.6%)	18 (14.4%)	33 (26.4%)	24 (19.2%)	43 (34.4%)
Key attributes for dating partners	68 (54.4%)	7 (5.6%)	8 (6.4%)	38 (30.4%)	15 (12%)	57 (45.6%)
Social stories for dating behaviors	65 (52%)	5 (4%)	11 (8.8%)	19 (15.2%)	30 (24%)	60 (48%)
Creating a dating profile	41 (32.8%)	1 (0.8%)	1 (0.8%)	23 (18.4%)	16 (12.8%)	84 (67.2%)

Table

Item Category	Explanation
Design	This was a convenience sample of health care professionals working in rehabilitation with adults after TBI
Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval	This study was approved by City, University of London (ETH1819-0360).
IRB Informed Consent	Participants were told the name of the main author, the aims of the survey, the number of questions (51) and approximate length of time that the survey would take to complete (15–20 minutes). Participants were also told that personal information would be stored securely and separately from the main results.
IRB Data Protection	Participants were given the opportunity to record their e-mail addresses to receive a summary of the results. This was the only personal information recorded. The e-mail addresses were stored on the university server in a password protected file.
Development and Pre-Testing	The survey was created by the authors, through drawing on key themes in the literature on dating, professional roles and therapeutic activities related to dating and relationships. The survey was usability tested with three professionals which resulted in changes to response categories and the removal of one question that was felt to be too similar to another question.
Recruitment Process – Open or closed survey	The was an open survey.
Recruitment Process – Contact Mode	Contact was made with potential participants via e-mail and social media sites including Twitter and Facebook.
Recruitment Process – Advertising the Survey	The survey was advertised through relevant professional mailing lists, and on social media sites including Twitter and Facebook.
Survey Administration – Web or E-Mail	The survey was a web-based survey, participants were provided with a link that directed them to the survey, created on Qualtrics.
Survey Administration – Context	The survey was created and hosted on Qualtrics; potential participants were directed to the survey using a link in the invitation to participate message.
Survey Administration – Mandatory or voluntary	The survey was voluntary, visitors to the survey were not required to complete the survey.
Survey Administration – Incentives	There were no incentives offered for completing the survey
Survey Administration – Time and date	The survey was open for data collection between February and May 2019.
Survey Administration – Randomization of items	The survey items were presented in a consistent order, there was no randomization.
Survey Administration – Adaptive Questioning	There were 3 questions which were conditionally displayed depending on answers to previous questions. This adaptive questioning was designed to either gain further details to a question, or to clarify a previous question where multiple answers were selected.
Survey Administration – Number of items	There were 52 items in the survey.
Survey Administration – Number of Screens	Each question was displayed on a separate screen, there was also an additional screen at the end of the survey thanking the participants for their time.
Survey Administration – Completeness check	Completion on questionnaires was automatically checked by Qualtrics, based on the participants who reached the final screen. Incomplete questionnaires were not saved.
Survey Administration – Review Step	Participants were able to navigate back through the questionnaire to change previous responses.
Response Rates – Unique site visitor	There was no attempt made to measure unique site visitors.
Response Rates – View rate	There was no attempt made to measure view rates.
Response Rates – Participation Rate	There was no attempt made to measure view rates
Response Rates – Completion rate	Incomplete surveys were deleted by Qualtrics, so it was not possible to compare the participation with the completion rate.
Preventing multiple entries – cookies used	Cookies were not used to identify unique users.
Preventing multiple entries – IP check	The computer IP address was not used to identify unique users. As this survey was targeted at health professionals it was anticipated that participants may be in shared offices, using the same computers.
Preventing multiple entries – Log file analysis	Log files were not recorded or analyzed to detect multiple entries.
Preventing multiple entries – Registration	This was an open survey; users were not required to register to access the survey.
Analysis – Handling of incomplete questionnaires	Only completed questionnaires were analyzed.
Analysis – Questionnaires submitted with an atypical timestamp	The completion time for questionnaires was not measured.
Analysis – Statistical correction	There was no statistical correction applied to the results.

Table 3a. Are you aware of other professionals addressing dating in rehabilitation (results split by same or different profession as the participant)

	Same Profession		A different profession
	Yes	No	Yes	No
SLT	23 (59%)	16 (41%)	25 (69.1%)	14 (35.9%)
OT	17 (63%)	10 (37%)	18 (66.7%)	9 (33.3%)
PT	2 (28.6%)	5 (71.4%)	4 (57.1%)	3 (42.9%)
Case Manager	15 (71.4%)	6 (28.6%)	14 (66.7%)	7 (33.3%)
Social Worker	3 (50%)	3 (50%)	3 (50%)	3 (50%)
Psychologist	12 (66.7%)	6 (33.3%)	12 (66.7%)	6 (33.3%)
Nurse	2 (50%)	2 (50%)	3 (75%)	1 (25%)
Other	1 (33.3%)	2 (66.6%)	2 (66.7%)	1 (33.3%)
Total	75 (60%)	50 (40%)	81 (64.8%)	44 (35.2%)

Table 3b. how confident do you feel in providing rehabilitation for dating skills?

	Completely confident	Very confident	Reasonably confident	Slightly confident	Not confident
SLT	1 (2.6%)	4 (10.3%)	10 (25.6%)	13 (33.3%)	11 (28.2%)
OT	1 (3.7%)	4 (14.8%)	12 (44.4%)	6 (22.2%)	4 (14.8%)
PT	0	0	1 (14.3%)	3 (42.9%)	3 (42.9%)
Case manager	3 (14.3%)	4 (19%)	8 (38.1%)	5 (23.8%)	1 (4.8%)
Social worker	0	1 (16.7%)	2 (33.3%)	2 (33.3%)	1 (16.7%)
Psychologist	0	3 (16.7%)	10 (55.6%)	3 (16.7%)	2 (11.1%)
Nurse	0	2 (50%)	2 (50%)	0	0
Other	0	1 (33.3%)	0	0	2 (66.7%)
Total	4%	15.2%	36%	25.6%	19.2%

Table 3C. How comfortable do you feel in providing rehabilitation for dating skills?

	Completely comfortable	Very comfortable	Reasonably comfortable	Slightly comfortable	Not comfortable
SLT	3 (7.7%)	6 (15.4%)	18 (46.2%)	8 (20.5%)	4 (10.3%)
OT	2 (7.4%)	6 (22.2%)	12 (44.4%)	4 (14.8%)	4 (11.1%)
PT	0	0	4 (57.1%)	2 (28.6%)	1 (14.3%)
Case manager	7 (33.3%)	3 (14.3%)	8 (38.1%)	3 (14.3%)	0
Social worker	0	0	3 (50%)	3 (50%)	0
Psychologist	2 (11.1%)	6 (33.3%)	6 (33.3%)	3 (16.7%)	1 (5.6%)
Nurse	1 (25%)	3 (75%)	0	0	0
Other	0	1 (33.3%)	0	0	2 (66.7%)
Total	12%	20%	40.8%	18.4%	8.8%

Krantz G, Tolan V, Pontarelli K, Cahill SM.What do adolescents with developmental disabilities learn about sexuality and dating? A potential role for occupational therapy. The Open Journal of Occupational Therapy. 2016;4(2):1–15.

 Google Scholar