This study was part of a nationwide, anonymous, open Internet survey conducted amongst healthcare professionals in Denmark on the assessment and treatment of spatial neglect (SN). The objective was to describe knowledge and practices in the assessment of SN in current clinical practice across different healthcare sectors and professions. Data included the perceived prevalence, assessment methods and observations, subtypes and differential diagnostics of SN. A total of 525 professionals participated in the survey. The vast majority (81.5%) reported that assessment of SN was provided by their workplace. The median of perceived prevalence of SN was 35% (IQR 22–51) but major differences were found between professions. Occupational therapists and psychologists appeared to be most involved in assessment, whilst nursing staff and speech therapists were least involved. Subjective observations were the most common assessment method (90%). Conversely, systematic ADL observations, paper-and-pencil tests, confrontational tests and computerized tests were less common. The survey revealed large differences in the assessment methods and awareness of various aspects of SN symptoms (subtypes and differential diagnostics) between different healthcare professions. The results emphasize the need for international multidisciplinary clinical guidelines on how to assess SN and distinguish between different subtypes and differential diagnoses.

这项研究是在丹麦的医疗保健专业人员中进行的一项全国性，匿名，开放式互联网调查的一部分，该调查涉及对空间疏忽（SN）的评估和治疗。目的是描述跨不同医疗保健部门和专业的当前临床实践中的SN评估中的知识和实践。数据包括感觉到的SN患病率，评估方法和观察结果，亚型和鉴别诊断。共有525名专业人员参加了调查。绝大多数（81.5％）报告说，对SN的评估是由他们的工作场所提供的。感觉到的SN患病率的中位数为35％（IQR 22-51），但专业之间存在重大差异。职业治疗师和心理学家似乎最参与评估，而护理人员和言语治疗师的参与最少。主观观察是最常见的评估方法（90％）。相反，系统的ADL观察，纸笔测试，对抗测试和计算机化测试较少见。调查显示，不同的医疗保健专业人士在评估方法和对SN症状各个方面（亚型和鉴别诊断）的认识上存在很大差异。结果强调了关于如何评估SN以及区分不同亚型和鉴别诊断的国际多学科临床指南的需要。调查显示，不同的医疗保健专业人士在评估方法和对SN症状各个方面（亚型和鉴别诊断）的认识上存在很大差异。结果强调了关于如何评估SN以及区分不同亚型和鉴别诊断的国际多学科临床指南的需要。调查显示，不同的医疗保健专业人士在评估方法和对SN症状各个方面（亚型和鉴别诊断）的认识上存在很大差异。结果强调了关于如何评估SN以及区分不同亚型和鉴别诊断的国际多学科临床指南的需要。