Search

Background: Although existing studies have shown that both repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) and music therapy have advantages in the treatment of non‐fluent aphasia, the efficacy of the combination of these two methods remains to be investigated. Aims: To investigate the clinical efficacy of low‐frequency rTMS combined with music therapy on language function and depression in patients with non‐fluent aphasia after stroke. Methods & Procedures: A single‐blind parallel randomised controlled trial was conducted. Sixty patients (mean duration = 93.78 days) with non‐fluent aphasia after stroke were randomly divided into a traditional therapy group (n = 20), a music therapy group (n = 20) and a combined therapy group (n = 20, 1 Hz). The language function and depression were evaluated before and 3 weeks after treatment with the Chinese version of the Western Aphasia Battery scale, Boston Diagnostic Aphasia Examination scale and Stroke Aphasic Depression Questionnaire Hospital Version scale. Outcomes & Results: The combined therapy group was significantly better in all outcomes than the traditional therapy group and was significantly better in depression than the music therapy group. The music therapy group was significantly better in repetition and depression than the traditional therapy group. Language improvement was positively correlated with depression improvement. For adverse events, only two patients in the combined therapy group showed slight dizziness during rTMS treatment and their symptoms improved after rest. Conclusions & Implications: Our preliminary randomised controlled study indicates that low‐frequency rTMS combined with music therapy is feasible and safe in improving language function and depression in non‐fluent aphasia patients after stroke. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: What is already known on this subject: Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) and music therapy respectively have advantages in the treatment of non‐fluent aphasia after stroke, but whether the combination of the two methods is more effective is still unknown. What this paper adds to the existing knowledge: This is one of the first randomised control trials to investigate whether the clinical efficacy of low‐frequency rTMS combined music therapy for non‐fluent aphasia is better. The findings show that low‐frequency rTMS combined music therapy is superior to traditional therapy in spontaneous speech, auditory comprehension, repetition, naming, aphasia quotient, functional language level and depression, and superior to music therapy in depression, while music therapy is superior to traditional therapy in repetition and depression. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work?: Low‐frequency rTMS combined music therapy may be a better method for treatment of non‐fluent aphasia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Very young children from lower socioeconomic status (SES) backgrounds often show poorer language development. Whilst there have been attempts to provide early intervention programmes, these sometimes miss the most disadvantaged groups. Aims: This report presents preliminary feasibility and effectiveness data for a novel language intervention designed for parents of toddlers in the United Kingdom. Methods and Procedures: In total, 43 UK families of 2–4‐year‐olds were recruited to the study, half of whom completed an 8‐week course (Tots Talking) focussed on parent interaction, and half of whom acted as wait‐list controls. Results and Outcomes: Results suggest that such programmes are feasible for families with 86% staying in the intervention. In addition, greater changes in underlying communication skills such as joint attention and gesture were evident compared to wait‐list controls. Conclusions and Implications: We conclude that pre‐verbal skills may be more important to measure as initial outcomes than language or vocabulary change in this population. What This Paper Adds: What is already known on the subject: Children from lower socioeconomic status (SES) backgrounds are at higher risk of communication difficulties and there is a need for community intervention programmes for very young children. What this study adds: This study suggests that such programmes can be feasible and effective, but that very early/basic communicative skills (such as joint attention) may be boosted first rather than language or vocabulary. What are the clinical implications of this work?: Children's centres and other community services could feasibly run short parent facing courses emphasising contingent communication in low SES families and other diverse groups. These may be more successful run with younger preschoolers. Joint attention may be a better focus of intervention before expecting vocabulary or language change. Community health professionals may find this information useful in referring and supporting families in need. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]