Search

Purpose: Conversation-focused speech-language pathology services are a top priority for people living with aphasia, but little is known about how researchers measure conversation as an outcome of treatment. This scoping review was undertaken to systematically review the evidence regarding the measurement of conversation in aphasia studies and to identify current practices and existing gaps. Method: A systematic literature search was conducted for studies published between January 1995 and September 2019 in multiple electronic databases. Covidence software was used to manage search results, study selection, and data charting processes. Data were extracted from each study and then collated and organized to elucidate the breadth of approaches, tools, or procedures oriented to measuring conversation as an outcome and identify gaps in the existing literature. Results: The systematic search of the literature resulted in 1,244 studies. A total of 64 studies met inclusion criteria and were included in the review. The review summarizes the various tools and procedures used to measure conversation as an outcome of aphasia intervention, including variations in data collection and analysis procedures. The review also evaluates the quality of conversation measures in terms of psychometric properties and informal measures of validity. There was a total of 211 measures used across the 64 studies. Conclusions: While there was no clear measure that was objectively superior, several measures show promise and warrant future exploration. Some of the orientations, conceptualizations, and procedures we have presented can be seen as options that might be included in a future conversation-focused core outcome set. Supplemental Material: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.21514062

Map the landscape of friendship interventions/programs for older adults to guide intervention/program development inclusive of the unique needs of older people with aphasia (PWA).A search query of multiple databases was completed for articles published before 4 January 2021. Studies included all the following: (1) participants aged 55 years or older; (2) addressed an intervention/program designed to prevent social isolation and/or friendship loss; (3) used an outcome variable related to social isolation and/or friendship; and (4) published in a peer-reviewed journal. Title and abstract screening were conducted using Covidence software, which tracked disagreements across the study team. All studies included in the full-text review were identified as relevant by a minimum of two study authors, and a consensus was reached on all full-text reviews. Data were extracted according to (1) theoretical frameworks used; (2) interventionist and discipline; (3) participant characteristics; (4) intervention/program replicability; (5) format of intervention/program; (6) measures used in the intervention/programs; (7) and, reported effects of intervention/programs on individuals.A total of 40 articles with 42 intervention/programs were included and represented 4584 intervention/program participants ranging in age from 40 to 104 years. Intervention/programs involved a wide range of theoretical frameworks (e.g., theories of loneliness, feminist theory, positive psychology). Disciplines such as psychology and exercise science informed intervention/programs. Interventionists included many types of individuals like therapists, volunteers and home health aides. Intervention/programs often lacked adequate description for replication and included individual and group formats, most commonly delievered in the participants homes. Outcomes usually included self-report measures of loneliness, social networks, or well-being, and intervention/programming was primarily educational, activity-based, or networking-based in nature.The intervention/programs reviewed yield important lessons to support innovation in developing friendship intervention/programs for older PWA as most yielded positive results and were acceptable to participants.IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONPeople with aphasia want their friendships addressed as part of their rehabilitation; however, the research literature has little guidance in this area.Studies reviewed of friendship intervention/programs for older adults yielded helpful lessons for consideration in developing this type of intervention/programming for people with aphasia.Interprofessional teams made up of rehabilitation professionals should address friendship for people with aphasia in both research and clinical practice.

Background: Evidence-based recommendations for a core outcome set (COS; minimum set of outcomes) for aphasia treatment research have been developed (the Research Outcome Measurement in Aphasia—ROMA, COS). Five recommended core outcome constructs: communication, language, quality of life, emotional well-being and patient-reported satisfaction/impact of treatment, were identified through three international consensus studies. Constructs were paired with outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) during an international consensus meeting (ROMA-1). Before the current study (ROMA-2), agreement had not been reached on OMIs for the constructs of communication or patient-reported satisfaction/impact of treatment. Aim: To establish consensus on a communication OMI for inclusion in the ROMA COS. Methods & Procedures: Research methods were based on recommendations from the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) Initiative. Participants with expertise in design and conduct of aphasia trials, measurement instrument development/testing and/or communication outcome measurement were recruited through an open call. Before the consensus meeting, participants agreed on a definition of communication, identified appropriate OMIs, extracted their measurement properties and established criteria for their quality assessment. During the consensus meeting they short-listed OMIs and participants without conflicts of interest voted on the two most highly ranked instruments. Consensus was defined a priori as agreement by ≥ 70% of participants. Outcomes & Results: In total, 40 researchers from nine countries participated in ROMA-2 (including four facilitators and three-panel members who participated in pre-meeting activities only). A total of 20 OMIs were identified and evaluated. Eight short-listed communication measures were further evaluated for their measurement properties and ranked. Participants in the consensus meeting (n = 33) who did not have conflicts of interest (n = 29) voted on the top two ranked OMIs: The Scenario Test (TST) and the Communication Activities of Daily Living—3 (CADL-3). TST received 72% (n = 21) of ‘yes’ votes and the CADL-3 received 28% (n = 8) of ‘yes’ votes. Conclusions & Implications: Consensus was achieved that TST was the preferred communication OMI for inclusion in the ROMA COS. It is currently available in the original Dutch version and has been adapted into English, German and Greek. Further consideration must be given to the best way to measure communication in people with mild aphasia. Development of a patient-reported measure for satisfaction with/impact of treatment and multilingual versions of all OMIs of the COS is still required. Implementation of the ROMA COS would improve research outcome measurement and the quality, relevance, transparency, replicability and efficiency of aphasia treatment research. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: What is already known on this subject International consensus has been reached on five core constructs to be routinely measured in aphasia treatment studies. International consensus has also been established for OMIs for the three constructs of language, quality of life and emotional well-being. Before this study, OMIs for the constructs of communication and patient-reported satisfaction/impact of treatment were not established. What this paper adds to existing knowledge We gained international consensus on an OMI for the construct of communication. TST is recommended for inclusion in the ROMA COS for routine use in aphasia treatment research. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work? The ROMA COS recommends OMIs for a minimum set of outcomes for adults with post-stroke aphasia within phases I–IV aphasia treatment research. Although not intended for clinical use, clinicians may employ the instruments of the ROMA COS, considering the quality of their measurement properties. The systematic inclusion of a measure of communication, such as TST, in clinical practice could ultimately support the implementation of research evidence and best practices.

Background: Stroke patients with aphasia and their caregivers have higher incidence of depression than those without aphasia. Aims: To determine whether a tailored intervention program (Action Success Knowledge; ASK) led to better mood and quality of life (QoL) outcomes than an attention control with a 12 month end point at cluster and individual participant level. Methods: A multi-site, pragmatic, two-level single blind cluster randomized controlled trial compared ASK to an attention control (secondary stroke prevention program). Ten metropolitan and 10 non-metropolitan health regions were randomized. People with aphasia and caregivers were recruited within 6 months post-stroke who scored ≤12 on the Stroke Aphasic Depression Questionnaire Hospital Version-10 at screening. Each arm received manualised intervention over 6-8 weeks followed by monthly telephone calls. Blinded assessments of QoL and depression were taken at 12 months post-onset. Results: Twenty clusters (health regions) were randomised. Trained speech pathologists screened 1744 people with aphasia and 373 participants consented to intervention (n=231 people with aphasia and 142 family members). The attrition rate after consent was 26% with 86 and 85 participants with aphasia in the ASK arm and attention control arm respectively receiving intervention. Of those 171 who did receive treatment, only 41 met the prescribed minimum dose. Multilevel mixed effects modelling under the intention to treat protocol showed a significant difference on the Stroke and Aphasia Questionnaire-21 (SADQ-21 N=122, 17 clusters) in favour of the attention control (β: −2.74, 95% CI: −4.76, −0.73, p=0.008). Individual data analysis using a minimal detectable change score for the SADQ-21 showed the difference was not meaningful. Conclusion: ASK showed no benefit over attention control in improving mood and preventing depression in people with aphasia or their family members. Funding acknowledgement: National Health and Medical Research grant APP1060673 Trial registration: Australian Clinical Trials ACTRN12614000979651

Background: International public surveys have generally indicated very poor awareness and knowledge of aphasia among the general public. However, none has assessed aphasia awareness in Kuwait until...

Background: Social isolation and loneliness are often present after aphasia and lead to negative health, social, and physical outcomes. Maintaining social connections after aphasia has been identif...

Background : Definitions reflect the current state of knowledge about a health condition. An agreed definition of aphasia is central to the progression of the science and clinical practice relevant to aphasia.\ud \ud Aim : To establish consensus on a definition of aphasia.\ud \ud Methods & Procedures : A three-round modified e-Delphi study was conducted with aphasia researchers who were members of the Collaboration of Aphasia Trialists (CATs). In round one, participants were provided with a draft definition developed by the Societal Impact and Reintegration Working Group of CATs. Participants were asked whether they agreed with the definition and were asked to comment on any aspects that they perceived to require amendment. Comments were collated and analysed using inductive content analysis. In round two, participants were presented with the collated and de-identified results of the first round and the participants were asked to vote “yes/no” on two contentious aspects of the definition. In round three, agreement on the revised definition was again sought using closed “yes/no” voting. Consensus was defined a priori as at least 70% agreement by 80% of all CATs members. CATs membership fluctuated across the study period and ranged between 131 and 141 members.\ud \ud Outcomes & Results : The proposed definition was Aphasia is a communication disability due to an acquired impairment of language modalities caused by focal brain damage. Aphasia may affect participation and quality of life of the person with aphasia as well as their family and friends. Aphasia masks competence and affects functioning across relationships, life roles and activities, thereby influencing social inclusion, social connectedness, access to information and services, equal rights, and wellbeing in family, community and culture.\ud \ud Two main categories of proposed amendments to the definition were identified: (1) definition of aphasia as a communication disability versus a language impairment; and (2) definition of aphasia as being the result of a focal and/or diffuse lesion. After three rounds of surveys, consensus was unable to be achieved with an almost even split across participants on both amendment issues.\ud \ud Conclusion : Further debate about the use of the term communication disability to describe aphasia and whether aphasia is a result of focal or diffuse lesions is required before consensus is again attempted.

Background: An important goal of people living with aphasia, aphasia organizations and professionals who work with aphasia is increased awareness of aphasia by the public. However, surveys of the public awareness of aphasia around the world and over time suggest that public knowledge of aphasia is poor. Aims: The aim of this article is to examine the literature on aphasia awareness and aphasia awareness campaigns, and to propose a strategic research agenda to move awareness building forward. Main Contribution: Aphasia awareness campaigns appear to have had minimal impact on knowledge of aphasia by the general public. Potential problems with aphasia awareness building were identified including a lack of a unified and compelling message across awareness campaigns, lack of coordination across organizations and campaigns, tendency to target audiences already familiar with aphasia, failure to base campaigns on theory and research from disciplines such as marketing, health promotion and communication research, failure to involve people with aphasia, their families and health-care professionals in the co-design of campaigns and no evidence that the impact of campaigns has been evaluated. Conclusions: A strategic research agenda is needed in order to increase the effectiveness, co-design, and co-evaluation of aphasia awareness campaigns worldwide. The authors propose an international effort and comprehensive research agenda to address aphasia awareness.

Background: Aphasia services are currently faced by increasing evidence for therapy of greater intensity and comprehensiveness. Intensive Comprehensive Aphasia Programs (ICAPs) combine these elements in an evidence-based, time-limited group program. The incorporation of new service delivery models in routine clinical practice is, however, likely to pose challenges for both the service provider and administering clinicians. This program of research aims to identify these challenges from the perspective of aphasia clinicians from six countries and will seek to trial potential solutions. Continual advancements in global communication technologies suggest that solutions will be easily shared and accessed across multiple countries.\ud \ud Aims: To identify the perceived and experienced barriers and facilitators to the implementation of 1) intensive aphasia services, 2) comprehensive aphasia services, and 3) ICAPs, from aphasia clinicians across six countries.\ud \ud Methods and procedures: A qualitative enquiry approach included data from six focus groups (n = 34 participants) in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, United States of America (USA), United Kingdom (UK), and Ireland. A thematic analysis of focus group data was informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF).\ud \ud Outcomes and results: Five prominent theoretical domains from the TDF influenced the implementation of all three aphasia service types across participating countries: environmental context and resources, beliefs about consequences, social/professional role and identity, skills, and knowledge. Four overarching themes assisted the identification and explanation of the key barriers and facilitators: 1. Collaboration, joint initiatives and partnerships, 2. Advocacy, the promotion of aphasia services and evidence-based practice, 3. Innovation, the ability to problem solve challenges, and 4. Culture, the influence of underlying values.\ud \ud Conclusions: The results of this study will inform the development of a theoretically informed intervention to improve health services’ adherence to aphasia best practice recommendations.

The Basic Outcome Measure Protocol for Aphasia (BOMPA) is a practical tool that allows for a quick self-report on quality of life from the perspective of the person with aphasia, as well as a clinical evaluation of aphasia severity and the ability to participate in conversation. The primary aim of this paper is to describe development of BOMPA and report on results of an inter-rater reliability study involving speech-language pathology raters.The inter-rater reliability study utilised a fully crossed design and included independent ratings of 12 videos by 20 speech-language pathologists.Results indicate moderate to strong inter-rater reliability among participant speech-language pathology raters (0.65-0.96), as well as when comparing these participant ratings with an expert rater's gold standard (0.59-0.86).BOMPA may be a useful outcome measurement tool for time-pressed clinicians in clinical settings.

Purpose This research note reports on an unexpected negative finding related to behavior change in a controlled trial designed to test whether partner training improves the conversational skills of volunteers. Method The clinical trial involving training in “Supported Conversation for Adults with Aphasia” utilized a single-blind, randomized, controlled, pre–post design. Eighty participants making up 40 dyads of a volunteer conversation partner and an adult with aphasia were randomly allocated to either an experimental or control group of 20 dyads each. Descriptive statistics including exact 95% confidence intervals were calculated for the percentage of control group participants who got worse after exposure to individuals with aphasia. Results Positive outcomes of training in Supported Conversation for Adults with Aphasia for both the trained volunteers and their partners with aphasia were reported by Kagan, Black, Felson Duchan, Simmons-Mackie, and Square in 2001. However, post hoc data analysis revealed that almost one third of untrained control participants had a negative outcome rather than the anticipated neutral or slightly positive outcome. Conclusions If the results of this small study are in any way representative of what happens in real life, communication partner training in aphasia becomes even more important than indicated from the positive results of training studies. That is, it is possible that mere exposure to a communication disability such as aphasia could have negative impacts on communication and social interaction. This may be akin to what is known as a “nocebo” effect—something for partner training studies in aphasia to take into account.

Background: Researchers are currently discussing the need for consensus on a core set of outcome measures to assess interventions in aphasia. For indirect, environmental approaches to aphasia intervention, such as communication partner training (CPT), the roadmap to obtaining consensus on core outcome measures seems especially complex. While the purpose of CPT is to improve communication for people with communication disorders, the intervention is aimed at the communication partner. There is also a variety of goals, activities, and possible settings for CPT. This complexity increases the risk of a mismatch between the goals and content of the intervention and measures used to evaluate the outcome. Aims: The purpose of this paper is to describe the complexity of measuring outcomes from CPT. The aim is to enable clinicians and researchers to reflect on the outcomes to be measured and also on how different types of measures may or may not be aligned with the goals and content of a specific CPT intervention. Main contribution: The current proliferation of outcome measures used in CPT is considered in the light of a survey of general factors to be considered in evaluating intervention outcomes. The complexity of measuring outcomes in CPT is illustrated and the importance of alignment of main objectives, intervention tasks, and projected outcomes is exemplified by referencing two common types of CPT approaches. Objectives relating to knowledge of aphasia, interactional behaviour, and feelings and attitudes are considered in relation to specific outcome measurements. It is suggested that both study-specific and more general measures are needed for capturing and comparing outcomes. The measurement of relevant outcome in CPT is discussed along with implications for future research and clinical practice. Conclusions: Different CPT approaches share the same purpose of facilitating communication in aphasia, but their application in research studies or in the clinic, is specific to the particular context. Special care must thus be taken in both clinical practice and research to safeguard the alignment between objectives, tasks, and projected intervention outcomes and the actual measures used. Further, it is concluded that there is a need for the development of new measures based on a consensus on key outcomes to be measured in CPT.

A key component of the current framework for economic evaluation is the measurement and valuation of health outcomes using generic preference-based health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) instruments. In 2015, a research synthesis reported the absence of conceptual and empirical research regarding the appropriateness of current preference-based instruments for people with aphasia—a disorder affecting the use and understanding of language—and suggested the development and validation of an accessible, pictorial variant could be an appropriate direction for further research. This paper describes the respective rationale and development process for each of three preliminary studies that have been undertaken to develop pictorial variants of two widely used preference-based HRQoL instruments (EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L). The paper also proposes next steps for this program of research, drawing on the lessons learned from the preliminary work and the demand for a pictorial preference-based instrument in the research community. Guidance for the use of the preliminary, pictorial instruments is also provided. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s41669-018-0083-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background: Communication partner training (CPT) is a widely recognized approach in aphasia; yet, the critical ingredients that contribute to successful CPT remain unclear. Further scrutiny of theo...

Background: Clinicians and researchers have reported that some people with aphasia fail to generalize trained augmentative strategies to everyday communication. Communication Accommodation ...

Background: Speech pathologists work to optimise communication and reduce the emotional and social impact of communication disability in patients with aphasia but need evidence-based interventions to effectively do so.Objective: This phase 1 study aims to evaluate an Australian speech-pathology-led intervention called the Aphasia Action, Success, and Knowledge (Aphasia ASK) programme for patients with aphasia early post stroke.Methods: A convergent parallel mixed-methods design was utilised. The intervention included up to six individual face-to-face sessions with seven participants with aphasia and their nominated family member(s). Quantitative outcomes assessing mood, quality of life, and communication confidence were conducted for the participants with aphasia. Follow-up interviews were conducted with both participants with aphasia and family members to determine their perceptions of the programme.Results: Significant improvements were found in communication confidence and mood after treatment and the gains were maintained at 3-month follow-up. Participants with aphasia and their family members reported a good level of satisfaction with the programme.Conclusions: Findings suggest the Aphasia ASK programme is a suitable intervention with positive initial outcomes for people with aphasia. A larger scale evaluation with a greater variety of participants is now required. An Australian cluster randomised control trial is planned.

The drive for positivity is one aspect of the professional ethos of speech-language pathology. Speech-language pathologists aim to promote positive professional relationships and clinical experiences to achieve goals. Positivity, that which is favorable, affirming or accepting, is projected through professional discourse. Acquisition of positive discourse strategies by students in training is often indirect and occurs implicitly as the student interacts with others. To investigate the management of positivity as it relates to clinical training, a qualitative investigation of discourse of speech-language pathology students and clinical supervisors was undertaken. A variety of discourse strategies designed to mitigate potential conflict or promote solidarity were identified in the text and talk between students and supervisors and in clinical sessions. These strategies, consistent with the literature on preference organization, contributed to positive relationships between students and supervisors and between clinicians and clients.

Background: The move from nationally focused health services towards healthcare globalisation is apparent with the hope that healthcare services will ultimately follow similar quality standards and guidelines throughout the world. Aphasia United, an organisation representing a broad range of professionals and others interested in improving the lives of those with aphasia, undertook a project to gain consensus on best practices to guide aphasia rehabilitation across multiple countries.Aims: To develop and gain multinational consensus on an initial set of best practice recommendations for aphasia.Methods & Procedures: The project entailed three phases: (1) crafting a draft set of recommendations for aphasia management drawing from research evidence and stroke guidelines, (2) obtaining consensus on recommendations from healthcare experts across multiple countries and (3) creating a strategic plan to facilitate dissemination, revision, further development and uptake of best practices. This article rep...

Background: Humour is considered as an integral aspect of interpersonal communication and is said to explain success in group and social situations. Directly elicited or spontaneously occurring humour has only relatively recently been investigated in therapeutic encounters with people with aphasia (PWA), mainly in one-to-one treatment sessions. In social participation groups for PWA, the focus is on increasing communicative effectiveness in conversation and on the adjustment to living with aphasia. Therefore, solidarity and supportive relationships are of particular importance and spontaneously occurring humour may facilitate social interaction.Aims: The aim of this study was to explore spontaneously occurring, conversationally based humour during interaction in social participation aphasia groups in terms of its functions, modalities, and initiators.Method: Ten sessions of a long-standing social participation aphasia group were video-recorded over a one-year period. The group consisted of 8–10 PWA (6 fem...

Background: Economic considerations are increasingly important in all areas of health care because of the need to determine the value of new and existing treatments. A key component of the current economic evaluation framework is the measurement of health outcomes in a manner that permits comparability across clinical areas—often referred to as “generic” outcome measurement—and incorporates societal preferences. Preference-based health-related quality of life (HRQoL) instruments are widely used to collect such data.Aims: To provide a research synthesis regarding the consideration and/or use of preference-based HRQoL instruments in the context of aphasia. A systematic search was conducted to identify aphasia-related publications that contained any of the leading preference-based instruments; in particular, the 15D, Assessment of Quality of Life (multiple variants), EQ-5D (three-level and five-level), Health Utilities Index (Mark 2 and Mark 3), Quality of Well-Being Scale Self-Administered, and/or SF-6D (SF...

Purpose: To identify important treatment outcomes from the perspective of people with aphasia and their families using the ICF as a frame of reference.Methods: The nominal group technique was used with people with aphasia and their family members in seven countries to identify and rank important treatment outcomes from aphasia rehabilitation. People with aphasia identified outcomes for themselves; and family members identified outcomes for themselves and for the person with aphasia. Outcomes were analysed using qualitative content analysis and ICF linking.Results: A total of 39 people with aphasia and 29 family members participated in one of 16 nominal groups. Inductive qualitative content analysis revealed the following six themes: (1) Improved communication; (2) Increased life participation; (3) Changed attitudes through increased awareness and education about aphasia; (4) Recovered normality; (5) Improved physical and emotional well-being; and (6) Improved health (and support) services. Prioritized outcomes for both participant groups linked to all ICF components; primary activity/participation (39%) and body functions (36%) for people with aphasia, and activity/participation (49%) and environmental factors (28%) for family members. Outcomes prioritized by family members relating to the person with aphasia, primarily linked to body functions (60%).Conclusions: People with aphasia and their families identified treatment outcomes which span all components of the ICF. This has implications for research outcome measurement and clinical service provision which currently focuses on the measurement of body function outcomes. The wide range of desired outcomes generated by both people with aphasia and their family members, highlights the importance of collaborative goal setting within a family-centred approach to rehabilitation. These results will be combined with other stakeholder perspectives to establish a core outcome set for aphasia treatment research.Implications for Rehabilitation• Important outcomes for people with aphasia and their families span all components of the ICF.• The relevancy and translation of research findings may be increased by measuring and reporting research outcomes which are important to people living with aphasia.• The results of this study indicate that important treatment outcomes for people living with aphasia most frequently link to the activity/participation and body function components of the ICF.• The outcomes identified in this study suggest a broad role for clinicians working in aphasia rehabilitation. The categories of identified outcomes may be used clinically as a starting point in goal-setting discussions with clients and their families. Purpose: To identify important treatment outcomes from the perspective of people with aphasia and their families using the ICF as a frame of reference.Methods: The nominal group technique was used with people with aphasia and their family members in seven countries to identify and rank important treatment outcomes from aphasia rehabilitation. People with aphasia identified outcomes for themselves; and family members identified outcomes for themselves and for the person with aphasia. Outcomes were analysed using qualitative content analysis and ICF linking.Results: A total of 39 people with aphasia and 29 family members participated in one of 16 nominal groups. Inductive qualitative content analysis revealed the following six themes: (1) Improved communication; (2) Increased life participation; (3) Changed attitudes through increased awareness and education about aphasia; (4) Recovered normality; (5) Improved physical and emotional well-being; and (6) Improved health (and support) services. Prioritized outcomes for both participant groups linked to all ICF components; primary activity/participation (39%) and body functions (36%) for people with aphasia, and activity/participation (49%) and environmental factors (28%) for family members. Outcomes prioritized by family members relating to the person with aphasia, primarily linked to body functions (60%).Conclusions: People with aphasia and their families identified treatment outcomes which span all components of the ICF. This has implications for research outcome measurement and clinical service provision which currently focuses on the measurement of body function outcomes. The wide range of desired outcomes generated by both people with aphasia and their family members, highlights the importance of collaborative goal setting within a family-centred approach to rehabilitation. These results will be combined with other stakeholder perspectives to establish a core outcome set for aphasia treatment research.Implications for Rehabilitation• Important outcomes for people with aphasia and their families span all components of the ICF.• The relevancy and translation of research findings may be increased by measuring and reporting research outcomes which are important to people living with aphasia.• The results of this study indicate that important treatment outcomes for people living with aphasia most frequently link to the activity/participation and body function components of the ICF.• The outcomes identified in this study suggest a broad role for clinicians working in aphasia rehabilitation. The categories of identified outcomes may be used clinically as a starting point in goal-setting discussions with clients and their families.

Objectives To (1) develop a systems-level quality improvement tool targeting communicative access to information and decision-making for stroke patients with language disorders; and (2) evaluate the resulting tool—the Communicative Access Measures for Stroke (CAMS). Design Survey development and evaluation was in line with accepted guidelines and included item generation and reduction, survey formatting and composition, pretesting, pilot testing, and reliability assessment. Setting Development and evaluation were carried out in hospital and community agency settings. Participants The project used a convenience sample of 31 participants for the survey development, and 63 participants for the CAMS reliability study (broken down into 6 administrators/managers, 32 frontline staff, 25 participants with aphasia). Eligible participants invited to the reliability study included individuals from 45 community-based organizations in Ontario as well as 4400 individuals from communities of practice. Interventions Not applicable. Main Outcome Measures Data were analyzed using kappa statistics and intraclass correlations for each item score on all surveys. Results A tool, the CAMS, comprising 3 surveys, was developed for health facilities from the perspectives of (1) administrators/policymakers, (2) staff/frontline health care providers, and (3) patients with aphasia (using a communicatively accessible version). Reliability for items on the CAMS-Administrator and CAMS-Staff surveys was moderate to high (kappa/intraclass correlation coefficients [ICCs], .54–1.00). As expected, reliability was lower for the CAMS-Patient survey, with most items having ICCs between 0.4 and 0.6. Conclusions These findings suggest that CAMS may provide useful quality improvement information for health care facilities with an interest in improving care for patients with stroke and aphasia.

IntroductionTreatment fidelity is a complex, multifaceted evaluative process which refers to whether a studied intervention was delivered as intended. Monitoring and enhancing fidelity is one recommendation of the TiDIER (Template for Intervention Description and Replication) checklist, as fidelity can inform interpretation and conclusions drawn about treatment effects. Despite the methodological and translational benefits, fidelity strategies have been used inconsistently within health behaviour intervention studies; in particular, within aphasia intervention studies, reporting of fidelity remains relatively rare. This paper describes the development of a fidelity protocol for the Action Success Knowledge (ASK) study, a current cluster randomised trial investigating an early mood intervention for people with aphasia (a language disability caused by stroke).Methods and analysisA novel fidelity protocol and tool was developed to monitor and enhance fidelity within the two arms (experimental treatment and attention control) of the ASK study. The ASK fidelity protocol was developed based on the National Institutes of Health Behaviour Change Consortium fidelity framework.Ethics and disseminationThe study protocol was approved by the Darling Downs Hospital and Health Service Human Research Ethics Committee in Queensland, Australia under the National Mutual Acceptance scheme of multicentre human research projects. Specific ethics approval was obtained for those participating sites who were not under the National Mutual Agreement at the time of application. The monitoring and ongoing conduct of the research project is in line with requirements under the National Mutual Acceptance. On completion of the trial, findings from the fidelity reviews will be disseminated via publications and conference presentations.Trial registration numberACTRN12614000979651.

Health professionals, researchers, and policy makers often consider the two terms aphasia and dysphasia to be synonymous. The aim of this article is to argue the merits of the exclusive use of the term aphasia and present a strategy for creating change through institutions such as the WHO-ICD. Our contention is that one term avoids confusion, speech-language pathologists prefer aphasia, scholarly publications indicate a preference for the term aphasia, stroke clinical guidelines indicate a preference for the term aphasia, consumer organizations use the title aphasia in their name and on their websites, and languages other than English use a term similar to aphasia. The use of the term dysphasia in the broader medical community may stem from the two terms being used interchangeably in the ICD10. Aphasia United http://www.shrs.uq.edu.au/aphasiaunited , an international movement for uniting the voice of all stakeholders in aphasia within an international context, will seek to eliminate the use of the term dysphasia.

Objective To determine factors that contribute to living well with aphasia in the first 12 months poststroke. Design Prospective longitudinal cohort study. Setting Hospitalized care, ambulatory care, and general community. Participants A referred sample of people (N=58) with a first incidence of aphasia after stroke was assessed at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months postonset. Participants were recruited through speech-language pathologists in 2 capital cities in Australia. Presence of aphasia was determined through the Western Aphasia Battery-Revised by an experienced speech-language pathologist. Interventions Not applicable. Main Outcome Measures The main outcomes were the 5 domains of the Assessment for Living with Aphasia at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months poststroke. The independent variables included demographics, physical functioning, social network, mood, aphasia severity, and a self-rating of successfully living with aphasia at the same time points. Mixed effects modeling was used to determine which factors contributed to the trajectory of each of the 5 domains of participation, impairment, environment, personal factors, and life with aphasia. Results Higher household income, larger social network size, being a woman, and having milder aphasia were positively associated with the participation domain. Graduate or postgraduate educational levels, low mood, and poor physical functioning were negatively associated with the participation domain. Factors positively associated with other domains included higher income, self-ratings of successfully living with aphasia, and aphasia severity. Low mood was consistently negatively associated with all of the domains. Conclusions Psychosocial determinants were the most significant predictors of living well with aphasia in the first 12 months postonset. Aphasia rehabilitation needs to attend more to these factors to optimize outcomes.

© 2016 Worrall et al. Background: People with aphasia and their family members are at high risk of experiencing post stroke depression. The impact of early interventions on mood and quality of life for people with aphasia is unknown. Methods/design: This study will determine whether an early intervention for both the person with aphasia after stroke and their family members leads to better mood and quality of life outcomes for people with aphasia, and less caregiver burden and better mental health for their family members. This is a multicenter, cluster-randomized controlled trial. Clusters, which are represented by Health Service Districts, will be randomized to the experimental intervention (Aphasia Action Success Knowledge Program) or an attention control (Secondary Stroke Prevention Information Program). People with aphasia and their family members will be blinded to the study design and treatment allocation (that is, will not know there are two arms to the study). Both arms of the study will receive usual care in addition to either the experimental or the attention control intervention. A total of 344 people with aphasia and their family members will be recruited. Considering a cluster size of 20, the required sample size can be achieved from 18 clusters. However, 20 clusters will be recruited to account for the potential of cluster attrition during the study. Primary outcome measures will be mood and quality of life of people with aphasia at 12 months post stroke. Secondary measures will be family member outcomes assessing the impact of caregiving and mental health, and self-reported stroke risk-related behaviors of people with aphasia. Discussion: This is the first known program tailored for people with aphasia and their family members that aims to prevent depression in people with aphasia by providing intervention early after the stroke. Trial registration: This trial is registered in the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) as ACTRN12614000979651. Date registered: 11 September 2014.

Objectives To update a previous systematic review describing the effect of communication partner training on individuals with aphasia and their communication partners, with clinical questions addressing effects of partner training on language, communication activity/participation, psychosocial adjustment, and quality of life. Data Sources Twelve electronic databases were searched using 23 search terms. References from relevant articles were hand searched. Study Selection Three reviewers independently reviewed abstracts, excluding those that failed to meet inclusion criteria. Thirty-two full text articles were reviewed by 2 independent reviewers. Articles not meeting inclusion criteria were eliminated, resulting in a corpus of 25 articles for full review. Data Extraction For the 25 articles, 1 reviewer extracted descriptive data regarding participants, intervention, outcome measures, and results. A second reviewer verified the accuracy of the extracted data. Data Synthesis The 3-member review team classified studies using the American Academy of Neurology levels of evidence. Two independent reviewers evaluated each article using design-specific tools to assess research quality. Conclusions All 25 of the current review articles reported positive changes from partner training. Therefore, to date, 56 studies across 2 systematic reviews have reported positive outcomes from communication partner training in aphasia. The results of the current review are consistent with the previous review and necessitate no change to the earlier recommendations, suggesting that communication partner training should be conducted to improve partner skill in facilitating the communication of people with chronic aphasia. Additional high-quality research is needed to strengthen the original 2010 recommendations and expand recommendations to individuals with acute aphasia. High-quality clinical trials are also needed to demonstrate implementation of communication partner training in complex environments (eg, health care).