Search

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 [greater than or equal to] 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.

Background: In everyday conversations, a person with aphasia (PWA) compensates for their language impairment by relying on multimodal and material resources, as well as on their conversation partners. However, some social actions people perform in authentic interaction, proposing a joint future activity, for example, ordinarily rely on a speaker producing a multi-word utterance. Thus, the language impairment connected to aphasia may impede the production of such proposals, consequently hindering the participation of PWAs in the planning of future activities. Aims: To investigate (1) how people with post-stroke chronic aphasia construct proposals of joint future activities in everyday conversations compared with their familiar conversation partners (FCPs); and (2) how aphasia severity impacts on such proposals and their uptake. Methods & Procedures: Ten hours of video-recorded everyday conversations from seven persons with mild and severe aphasia of varying subtypes and their FCPs were explored using conversation analysis. We identified 59 instances where either party proposed a joint future activity and grouped such proposals according to their linguistic format and sequential position. Data are in Finnish. Outcomes & Results: People with mild aphasia made about the same number of proposals as their FCPs and used similar linguistic formats to their FCPs when proposing joint future activities. This included comparable patterns associated with producing a time reference, which was routinely used when a proposal initiated a planning activity. Mild aphasia manifested itself as within-turn word searches that were typically self-repaired. In contrast, people with severe aphasia made considerably fewer proposals compared with their FCPs, the proposal formats being linguistically unidentifiable. This resulted in delayed acknowledgement of the PWAs' talk as a proposal. Conclusions & Implications: Mild aphasia appears not to impede PWAs' ability to participate in the planning of joint future activities, whereas severe aphasia is a potential limitation. To address this possible participatory barrier, we discuss clinical implications for both therapist-led aphasia treatment and conversation partner training.

Background: Many speakers with non-fluent aphasia (NFA) are able to produce some well-formed word combinations such as 'I like it' or 'I don't know', although they may not use variations such as 'He likes it' or 'I don't know that person'. This suggests that these utterances represent fixed forms. Aims: This case series investigation explored the impact of a novel intervention aimed at enhancing the connected speech of individuals with NFA. The intervention, motivated by usage-based principles, involved filling open slots in semi-fixed sentence frames. Methods & Procedures: Five participants with NFA completed a 6-week intervention programme. The intervention trained participants to insert a range of different lexical items into the open slots of high-frequency phrases such as 'I like it' to enable more productive sentences (e.g., 'they like flowers'). The outcomes and acceptability were examined: The primary outcome measure focused on changes in connected narrative, and the availability of trained constructions (e.g., 'I like it') was explored through a story completion test. Two baseline measures of behaviour were taken prior to intervention, and outcomes assessed immediately after intervention and at a 6-week maintenance assessment. Outcome & Results: A pre-/post-treatment comparison of connected speech measures showed evidence of enhanced connected speech for two of the five participants (P2 and P5). An analysis of story completion test scores revealed positive change for two participants (P1 and P2). Findings were mixed with regard to baseline stability of outcome measures and post-intervention stability of language changes. The intervention was acceptable to all participants. Conclusion & Implications: While this pilot study yielded promising findings with regard to the intervention's acceptability and increased connected speech for some participants, the findings were mixed across the sample of five participants. This research helps inform hypotheses and selection criteria for future studies.

Background: Primary progressive aphasia (PPA) describes a heterogeneous group of language-led dementias. People with this type of dementia are increasingly being referred to speech and language therapy (SLT) services. Yet, there is a paucity of research evidence focusing on PPA interventions and little is known about SLT practice in terms of assessment and provision of intervention. Aims: To survey the practices of SLTs in the areas of assessment and intervention for people with PPA. Methods & Procedures: A 37-item, pilot-tested survey was distributed electronically through the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists (RCSLT), Clinical Excellence Networks (CENs) and social media networks. Survey items included questions on care pathways, assessment and intervention approaches, and future planning. Analysis was conducted using descriptive statistics and thematic analysis. Outcomes & Results: A total of 105 SLTs completed the survey. Respondents reported more frequently using formal assessment tools designed for stroke-related aphasia than for dementia. Informal interviews were reportedly always used during assessment by almost 80% of respondents. Respondents were significantly more likely to use communication partner training than impairment-focused interventions. Goal attainment was the most commonly used outcome measure. Respondents provided 88 goal examples, which fell into six themes: communication aid; conversation; functional communication; impairment focused; specific strategy; and communication partner. Additionally, respondents reported addressing areas such as future deterioration in communication and cognition, decision-making and mental capacity, and driving. Ten (9.4%) respondents reported the existence of a care pathway for people with PPA within their service. Conclusions & Implications: This survey highlights the range of current PPA assessment and intervention practices in use by the respondents. Communication partner training is commonly used by the surveyed SLTs, despite the lack of research evidence examining its effectiveness for PPA. There is a need to develop evidence-based care pathways for people with PPA in order to advocate for further commissioning of clinical services.

Background: Oral comprehension difficulties are prevalent in preschool children with language difficulties and are frequently the target of speech and language therapy (SLT) intervention. To support the implementation of research to practice, there is a need to identify effective interventions for this population and to describe their components. To date, reviews of oral comprehension intervention have not used inclusion criteria aligned with common clinical practice, particularly in the United Kingdom. No studies have previously used the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist to describe developmental SLT interventions. Aims: To identify intervention studies effective for oral comprehension in preschool children with language difficulties, using the UK definition of 'preschool' as children under 5 years; to describe the components of these interventions. Method: This followed two phases: (1) an International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews registered search, which identified 20 systematic reviews; and (2) an exploration of individual studies within these reviews. Seventeen individual studies described effective intervention for children from 1 to 5 years old with language difficulties. Data were extracted from each study against headings from the TIDieR checklist. Findings were analysed and reported using narrative synthesis. Main contribution: A wide variety of rationales, techniques, procedures, settings and intensities were associated with effective intervention. The TIDieR checklist highlighted components that were unreported or under‐described. Conclusions: Studies show that intervention can be effective for improving oral comprehension in preschool children with language difficulties. Analysis of intervention components has relevance to clinical practice and research, and highlights the importance of naturally occurring interactions, cross‐over between oral comprehension and expressive language and the variety in delivery models and dosage. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: What is already known on this subject: There is a reported lack of research into interventions developing oral comprehension in children with language difficulties. Intervention checklists such as the Template for Intervention Description and Replication are valuable tools for understanding interventions and supporting the application of research to practice, but none have been used to describe interventions for children with language difficulties. What this study adds: There is evidence that intervention developing oral comprehension in preschool children (using UK definition, those under 5 years) with language difficulties can be effective. Analysing intervention components reveals key points for consideration by clinicians. What are the clinical implications of this work?: Intervention components identified by this study support the implementation of research to practice by highlighting particular areas for consideration by clinicians. For researchers, gaps in reporting demonstrate the need to describe all aspects of intervention to support replication and implementation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Traditional views of the writing process as a solitary and painstaking task can inhibit postgraduate students from pursuing useful conversations about their writing. Recent research has suggested that spaces for opening discussion on writing are needed and are important in supporting postgraduate writers to develop their academic identity (Cuthbert & Spark, 2008; Cuthbert, Spark & Burke 2009; Kamler & Thomson, 2007; Lee & Boud, 2003). This paper explores the experiences of five students at University College London (UCL), who were the first cohort to take a writing module which aimed to introduce theoretical and practical approaches to writing and to encourage reflection and evaluation of writing practices. The three key themes to emerge from the research were related to the development of the students' confidence as writers and more generally as researchers. These were: (1) Space--the value of having a defined space for writing, providing a new focus for learning in a less formal environment; (2) Academic Identity--the development of the students' academic identity through writing and gaining confidence as writers; and (3) Peer Learning--the importance of discussion with peers in developing writing and academic identity.

Objectives: This study was part of a process evaluation for a single‐blind, randomized controlled pilot study comparing Better Conversations with Primary Progressive Aphasia (BCPPA), an approach to communication partner training, with no speech and language therapy treatment. It was necessary to explore fidelity of delivery (delivery of intervention components) and intervention enactment (participants' use of intervention skills in the form of conversation behaviours comprising facilitators, that enhance the conversational flow, and barriers, that impeded the flow of conversation). This study aimed to: (1) Outline an adapted methodological process that uses video observation, to measure both fidelity of delivery and enactment. (2) Measure the extent to which the BCPPA pilot study was delivered as planned, and enacted. Design: Observational methods were used alongside statistical analysis to explore the fidelity of intervention and enactment using video recordings obtained from the BCPPA pilot study. Methods: A 5‐step methodology, was developed to measure fidelity of delivery and enactment for the BCPPA study using video‐recorded data. To identify delivery of intervention components, a random sample of eight video recorded and transcribed BCPPA intervention sessions was coded. To examine the enactment of conversation behaviours, 108 transcribed 10 ‐min‐video recorded conversations were coded from 18 participants across the control and intervention group. Results: Checklists and guidelines for measurement of fidelity of treatment delivery and coding spreadsheets and guidelines for measurement of enactment are presented. Local collaborators demonstrated 87.2% fidelity to the BCPPA protocol. Participants in the BCPPA treatment group increased their use of facilitator behaviours enacted in conversation from a mean of 13.5 pre‐intervention to 14.2 post‐intervention, whilst control group facilitators decreased from a mean of 15.5 to 14.4, over the same timescale. Conclusions: This study proposes a novel and robust methods, using video recorded intervention sessions and conversation samples, to measure both fidelity of intervention delivery and enactment. The learnings from this intervention are transferable to other communication interventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Conversation therapy for aphasia is a complex intervention comprising multiple components and targeting multiple outcomes. UK Medical Research Council (MRC) guidelines published in 2008 recommend that in addition to measuring the outcomes of complex interventions, evaluation should seek to clarify how such outcomes are produced, including identifying the hypothesized mechanisms of change. Aims: To identify mechanisms of change within a conversation therapy for people with aphasia and their partners. Using qualitative methods, the study draws on behaviour change theory to understand how and why participants make changes in conversation during and after therapy. Methods and Procedures: Data were derived from 16 participants (eight people with aphasia; eight conversation partners) who were recruited to the Better Conversations with Aphasia research project and took part in an eight session conversation therapy programme. The dataset consists of in-therapy discussions and post-therapy interviews, which are analysed using Framework Analysis. Outcomes and Results: Seven mechanisms of conversational behaviour change are identified and linked to theory. These show how therapy can activate changes to speakers' skills and motivation for using specific behaviours, and to the conversational opportunities available for strategy use. Conclusions and Implications: These clinically relevant findings offer guidance about the processes involved in producing behavioural change via conversation therapy. A distinction is made between the process involved in motivating change and that involved in embedding change. Differences are also noted between the process engaged in reducing unhelpful behaviour and that supporting new uses of compensatory strategies. Findings are expected to have benefits for those seeking to replicate therapy's core processes both in clinical practice and in future research.

Background: Communication strategy training (CST) is a recognized part of UK speech and language therapists' (SLTs) role when working with a person with aphasia. Multiple CST interventions have been published but, to date, there are no published studies exploring clinical practice in this area. Aims: To investigate UK SLTs' current CST practices. Methods & Procedures: Thirty-seven UK SLTs completed an online questionnaire, eight of whom attended a follow-up focus group. A clinical consistency scale was applied to the questionnaire data and tasks that were most consistently used were explored in the focus group and analyzed using a primarily deductive thematic data analysis approach. Outcomes & Results: Three key CST findings arose: (1) the rarity with which SLTs focus equally and explicitly on both communication partners' strategies; (2) SLTs' differing understandings of CST terminologies and concepts and underuse of formal assessment; and (3) the absence of video feedback. Conclusion & Implications: This study's survey findings suggest that conversation partners not only receive half the amount of CST given to people with aphasia but also play a more passive learning role when they are present. This is an interesting point to consider when the current evidence base contains stronger evidence for the effectiveness of conversation partner CST over other CST approaches, it being described as an effective method that may be maintained over time.

Conversation is challenging to measure. Quantitative and qualitative measures need to be sensitive to the conversation context, the purpose and the variable contributions of participants in order to capture meaningful change. Measurements also need to be consistent across independent raters. The reliability of global observational rating scales across differing sample lengths has previously been investigated. An investigation into the effects of sample length on inter-rater reliability using a behavioural frequency measure is a new field of research. This study reports on the inter-rater reliability of the Interactional Network Tool (INT), a behavioural coding system for use with group interaction data. It examines the effects of sample length on reliability using a refined coding system designed to improve the speed and efficiency of use in clinical settings. Fourteen video samples of group interactions for people with acquired brain injury were prepared for analysis. Two raters independently coded the films using the INT coding system. Individual code reliability was calculated using intra-class correlations (ICCs). Codes were combined to form a new coding structure. Reliability of the new codes was calculated using intra-class correlations across four sample lengths (5,10,15 and 20 minutes). A one-way analysis of variance was used to compare the means of the four sample lengths. Acceptable inter-rater reliability was achieved using the refined INT coding system. There was no difference between the four sample lengths. These findings indicate that trained clinicians using the INT in clinical practice can achieve a reliable measure of participation in a group interaction from short samples. Validation with other clinical groups is now indicated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

With an increasing number of young adult stroke survivors, there is a specific need to investigate how aphasia affects parenting. Raising a child happens through interaction, and centrally involves requests, such as 'go to bed', and 'sit still'. Aphasia may impede participation in interaction and thus potentially also the possibilities to make requests to children and – from a wider perspective – do parenting. This study aims to explore practices employed by parents with aphasia to ask their children to do or to stop an action during everyday interactions (e.g. mealtimes, games). The design of requests is systematically examined to shed light on the way deontic authority (the right to direct another person's future action) is displayed by parents with aphasia. Using conversation analysis (CA), we carried out a collection-based study of 46 request sequences in 10 hours of video recordings involving three parents with aphasia (two with mild and one with severe aphasia). Stopping a child's action may be easier to achieve than getting a child to do something, as it requires less specification of the action. Furthermore, the severity of aphasia may limit the fine-tuning of deontic authority. The persons with mild aphasia adjust the degree of authority for example by adding mitigating words, such as 'a bit'. The person with severe aphasia uses requests that mostly show unmitigated authority for example by using higher volume. Structured contexts, such as games and mealtimes, may offer resources for all three parents with aphasia because they provide scaffolded interaction. The analysis offers insights into practices that may allow or hinder these parents with aphasia to perform requests and thus to engage in parenting and participate in family life. Our findings suggest that people with aphasia could benefit from training to implement activities such as requesting in rehabilitation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Historically, agrammatism, a symptom of Broca's aphasia, has been associated with dysprosody, on account of speakers' slow, halting, and effortful speech. Almost all investigations of this phenomenon use experimental methods (reading, repetition). Thus, little is known about how prosody is used by speakers with agrammatism and understood by their interlocutors in everyday conversations. This paper takes an interactional approach to prosody, using Conversation Analysis to explore everyday conversations between three speakers with agrammatism and their family members/friends, recorded in the home. A distinct prosodic pattern is revealed in their talk, whereby non-final words in an agrammatic utterance are produced with mid-level or minor rising pitch, and final words with a prominent pitch excursion. The analysis shows that conversation partners orient to terminal pitch movement as a signal of turn completion. Conversely, they do not take the floor when pitch signals continuation, despite significant pausing and severe grammatical disruption. Thus, prosody appears to function to regulate turn taking in the same way as it does in typical (non-language disordered) conversation. For these three speakers, intact prosodic skills appear to compensate for impaired grammatical ability, by packaging a series of haltingly produced words into an utterance, the meaning of which is responded to by the conversation partner as the sum of its agrammatic parts. (Contains 8 figures and 5 notes.)

This paper uses the methodology of conversation analysis (CA) to examine the practice of co-constructed turn and utterance production in impaired communication. An investigation of the conversations between two family dyads, featuring one person with dysarthric speech and one with aphasic language, reveals one way in which single turns and utterances are produced through the collaborative activities of two people in interaction. Such a practice is shown to operate without problems for the participants or the need for explicit acceptance by the speakers. It is proposed that co-construction in disordered speech and language is one way in which communicative competence is accomplished. By drawing attention to similarities in the consequences of dysarthria and aphasia in everyday interaction, it is suggested that researchers and clinicians might profitably look across disorder-specific boundaries. (Contains 3 notes.)

Current approaches to assessing agrammatism use data from restricted contexts, such as picture description and story telling tasks. There is evidence in the conversation analysis literature to suggest that conversational grammar may differ markedly from the grammar of such elicited language samples. The disparity between conversational and test grammar suggests that it is possible for the form of an agrammatic utterance to be motivated by the context in which it occurs. Thus, behaviours previously considered to be symptoms of agrammatism may be adaptations to talking in different environments. This study analyses two distinctive test response forms made by two agrammatic speakers, and discusses whether they might be strategic adaptations to testing rather than symptoms of impairment. (Contains 1 table.)

Background: Agrammatic speech can manifest in different ways in the same speaker if task demands change. Individual variation is considered to reflect adaptation, driven by psycholinguistic factors such as underlying deficit. Recently, qualitative investigations have begun to show ways in which conversational interaction can influence the form of an agrammatic speaker's output. Aims: To explore qualitative patterns of individual variation in the output of a single case, in order to address the following questions: (1) in what ways do grammatical structure, verbs and argument structure differ qualitatively between data samples?; and (2) what is the influence of interaction on the structure of utterances? Methods & Procedures: A man with severe and chronic agrammatism is videotaped completing tests of spoken sentence construction, composite, and cartoon strip picture descriptions and a story telling task. In addition, he independently videotapes a sample of conversation with a family member at home. Analyses of these data draw on cognitive neuropsychological, linguistic and psycholinguistic methodologies as well as the data-driven procedures of conversation analysis.Outcomes & Results: The qualitative analysis uncovers considerable variation between data sets with respect to grammatical structure, verbs and argument structure. The agrammatic speaker appears more skilled at imposing order on his spontaneous speech than the results of sentence construction tests might predict. Interaction influences his output style. Adaptation is found to be a collaborative process that occurs between two speakers in the quest for mutual understanding, not something that takes place within an individual. Conclusions: It is concluded that an interactional approach to agrammatism has the potential to yield important insights into the characteristics of telegraphic speech and individual variation. The failure of sentence-level tests to capture this individual's skill in producing systematically structured utterances in conversation implies that the assessment of agrammatism could benefit from the additional sampling and analysis of conversational grammar.

Background: In everyday conversations, a person with aphasia (PWA) compensates for their language impairment by relying on multimodal and material resources, as well as on their conversation partners. However, some social actions people perform in authentic interaction, proposing a joint future activity, for example, ordinarily rely on a speaker producing a multi‐word utterance. Thus, the language impairment connected to aphasia may impede the production of such proposals, consequently hindering the participation of PWAs in the planning of future activities. Aims: To investigate (1) how people with post‐stroke chronic aphasia construct proposals of joint future activities in everyday conversations compared with their familiar conversation partners (FCPs); and (2) how aphasia severity impacts on such proposals and their uptake. Methods & Procedures: Ten hours of video‐recorded everyday conversations from seven persons with mild and severe aphasia of varying subtypes and their FCPs were explored using conversation analysis. We identified 59 instances where either party proposed a joint future activity and grouped such proposals according to their linguistic format and sequential position. Data are in Finnish. Outcomes & Results: People with mild aphasia made about the same number of proposals as their FCPs and used similar linguistic formats to their FCPs when proposing joint future activities. This included comparable patterns associated with producing a time reference, which was routinely used when a proposal initiated a planning activity. Mild aphasia manifested itself as within‐turn word searches that were typically self‐repaired. In contrast, people with severe aphasia made considerably fewer proposals compared with their FCPs, the proposal formats being linguistically unidentifiable. This resulted in delayed acknowledgement of the PWAs' talk as a proposal. Conclusions & Implications: Mild aphasia appears not to impede PWAs' ability to participate in the planning of joint future activities, whereas severe aphasia is a potential limitation. To address this possible participatory barrier, we discuss clinical implications for both therapist‐led aphasia treatment and conversation partner training. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: What is already known on the subject: PWAs use multimodal resources to compensate for their language impairment in everyday conversations. However, certain social actions, such as proposing a joint future activity, cannot ordinarily be accomplished without language. What this paper adds to existing knowledge: The study demonstrates that proposing joint future activities is a common social action in everyday conversations between PWAs and their family members. People with mild aphasia used typical linguistic proposal formats, and aphasic word‐finding problems did not prevent FCPs from understanding the talk as a proposal. People with severe aphasia constructed proposals infrequently using their remaining linguistic resources, a newspaper connecting the talk to the future and the support from FCPs. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work?: We suggest designing aphasia treatment with reference to the social action of proposing a joint future activity. Therapist‐led treatment could model typical linguistic proposal formats, whereas communication partner training could incorporate FCP strategies that scaffold PWAs' opportunities to construct proposals of joint future activities. This would enhance aphasia treatment's ecological validity, promote its generalization and ultimately enable PWAs to participate in everyday planning activities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]