Search

Background and Objectives: Evidence suggests telehealth in speech and language therapy can enhance access to care, cost‐effectiveness and satisfaction. However, little is known about use of telehealth in the United Kingdom. Moreover, many assessments/outcome measures for aphasia have been tested for face‐to‐face administration only, posing challenges to reliable use within the telehealth context. We explored the experiences and views of speech and language therapists (SLTs) working with people with aphasia on using telehealth to conduct assessments/outcome measures, perceived barriers and facilitators in telehealth, and their priorities for research in telehealth aphasia assessment. Method: We explored views of UK SLTs through an online cross‐sectional survey (2021) delivered through the Qualtrics platform. The survey covered three main areas: (i) participant demographics; (ii) experience of using telehealth and doing telehealth assessments with people with aphasia post‐stroke during the COVID‐19 pandemic; and (iii) plans for telehealth post‐pandemic. Response formats included yes/no, multiple choice, 5‐point Likert scales and open‐ended text responses. The survey was expected to take no more than 10 min to complete. Survey data were analysed through descriptive statistics and content analysis of open‐ended questions. Results: One hundred twenty‐four SLTs responded to the survey. The majority (>80%) used telehealth during the COVID‐19 pandemic and >90% planned to continue to use telehealth in the future. The most used platforms were Zoom, Microsoft Teams and Attend Anywhere. Access to internet and telehealth platforms, and practical problems (e.g., difficulties sharing resources online, limited functionality of telehealth platforms for assessment) were common barriers. Therapists highlighted that training, resources and materials that assist the administration of assessments were important. Most participants responded that there was a need for existing measures to be tested for administration via telehealth (n = 68, 70.8%). Participants overall felt there was a need for online interactive assessments, more online resources that have been trialled for use via telehealth, accessible formats for resources for people with aphasia and clear instructions for how people with aphasia can access resources. Conclusions: This study provides new insights into the current use of telehealth assessment with people with aphasia in the United Kingdom and directions for future research. Barriers and facilitators identified can support the implementation of telehealth assessment in SLT services. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: What is already known on the subject: The use of telehealth in speech and language therapy has advantages in terms of access to care, cost‐effectiveness and satisfaction with care. However, little is known about the use of telehealth in aphasia rehabilitation in the United Kingdom, especially in the area of assessment and outcome measurement. What this paper adds to existing knowledge: This study identified that the majority (>80%) of aphasia therapists used telehealth during the COVID‐19 pandemic and >90% planned to continue to use telehealth in the future. A need was identified for existing measures to be tested for administration via telehealth and for training, resources (e.g., online interactive assessments) and materials (e.g., accessible formats for people with aphasia). What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work?: To facilitate the successful implementation of telehealth assessment, there is a need for measures validated for use via telehealth and more online resources that have been trialled for use via telehealth. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Cognitive communication disorder (CCD) following traumatic brain injury (TBI) is well documented and these communication problems impede successful re‐integration into community living. While there is growing evidence for intervention to both detect and treat the impact of these deficits across the rehabilitation continuum, there are barriers to accessing services. Cognitive communication impairments may be missed because the person can talk, and this may mask the subtle but debilitating impact of a CCD. Referral to a speech and language therapist (SLT) may be overlooked or not timely, which prevents the individual accessing evidence‐based interventions. Inadequate treatment provision and an under‐ or overestimation of communication capability can potentially undermine the effectiveness of wider team assessment and intervention. Aims: To report stakeholder views on specialist SLT input for CCD within a multidisciplinary team intervention for a community‐dwelling individual with severe TBI. The investigation explored perspectives on understanding of CCD, on practice and on outcomes, in order to inform professional groups on perceived impacts of the evidence‐to‐practice gap. Methods and Procedures: A semi‐structured interview methodology was employed with 11 stakeholder participants involved in a single case. Data were evaluated using a thematic framework method. Themes were inductively derived from the stakeholder narratives. Outcomes: Stakeholders reported the following outcomes from specialist SLT input for CCD within a collaborative team approach: improved engagement with rehabilitation and support teams, improved health‐related quality of life and well‐being, and increased client participation in community activities of personal relevance. Stakeholders also reported inequities in wider service provision where limitations in professional understanding of CCD and knowledge of best practice recommendations preclude access to specialist SLT services. Conclusions: CCDs are under‐recognised and this can have a devastating effect on people with CCD and on those around them. Stakeholder reports provide evidence for the effectiveness of SLT practice recommendations for the treatment of CCD following TBI. They also provide additional evidence of persisting barriers to accessing treatment. Future research to explore ways to close this evidence‐to‐practice gap is required. What This Paper Adds: What is already known on this subject: Cognitive communication difficulties are a well‐documented consequence of TBI. There is evidence for the effectiveness of person‐centred interventions for CCD across the recovery continuum. International evidence‐based practice recommendations are in place for CCD assessment and management. Barriers to accessing SLT expertise for CCD have previously been reported. What this paper adds to existing knowledge: This investigation explores the views of a diverse group of stakeholders involved in a single case of a community‐dwelling individual with severe TBI. Stakeholders report positive real‐world outcomes from SLT interventions for CCD within a coordinated multidisciplinary rehabilitation team. Stakeholder reports also indicate inequities in wider service provision and CCD knowledge gaps amongst professional groups providing rehabilitation services for people with TBI. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work?: CCDs are under‐recognised, with devastating effect for people with CCD and those around them. These findings underscore the importance of raising professional awareness of CCD and best practice recommendations, in order to improve access to SLT expertise for people with CCD following TBI. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Rehabilitation for cognitive‐communication impairments following brain injury can be complex given the heterogenous nature of impairments post injury. Project‐based intervention has the potential to improve communication skills and create a meaningful real‐life context where individuals collaborate to develop a concrete product, which benefits others. While evidence for this intervention is emerging, the COVID‐19 pandemic prompted increased use of telehealth interventions to serve people with brain injury. This paper aims to describe a framework for the delivery of project‐based intervention via telehealth within community rehabilitation settings; and present several case studies of telehealth groups completed in the United Kingdom and the United States during the COVID‐19 pandemic. Methods: A working group was formed to map the components of project‐based intervention onto the rehabilitation treatment specification system (RTSS). This system is a conceptual framework that helps to explain the link between treatment theory and ingredients, allowing a clinician to clearly understand how and why a treatment works. First, a literature search was completed to identify eligible studies on project‐based intervention after brain injury. Second, those studies were thematically mapped onto the RTSS to identify important intervention components. Third, the presence of these components was assessed for community brain injury groups delivered via telehealth in the United Kingdom and United States. These groups were further described using a taxonomy of social activities that help to describe the degree of meaningful social engagement. Results: The literature was described with a thematic RTSS summary. Treatment aims focus on skills training and self‐efficacy, advocacy and self‐empowerment, emotional well‐being and quality of life, and collaboration and community belonging. Treatment ingredients involve a range of cognitive and behavioural supports to deliver meaningful activities and contexts to complete a project. Mechanisms of action involve learning by doing and cognitive and affective information processing. All four telehealth groups conducted in the United Kingdom and United States involved at least three treatment aims, >7 targets, and >8 treatment ingredients. All groups reported positive experiences from activities that involve working collaboratively to help others and contribute to society. Conclusions: Project‐based intervention delivered via telehealth has the potential for supporting people with acquired brain injury to improve their communication skills and engage in meaningful, collaborative activity. Application of the RTSS helps clinicians to understand the aims and therapeutic ingredients (or clinician activities) through which a person with brain injury may achieve specific treatment targets during the rehabilitation process. What this paper adds: What is already known on the subject: Project‐based interventions have the potential to improve cognitive, self‐regulatory, behavioural and social communication skills, renegotiate identity and reaffirm sense of self, providing a positive impact on quality of life for persons with acquired brain injuries. Projects serve as a context for meaningful engagement for individuals in the chronic phase of traumatic brain injury recovery, without fulfilling work, family or social responsibilities. However, most published research has involved in‐person projects and few projects have been delivered via telehealth. What this paper adds to existing knowledge: While past published works have shared core principles of intervention, a variety of projects, durations, dosages and methods have been employed. The current paper provides a framework to support more consistent implementation. By mapping previous project‐based interventions to the RTSS, clinicians will have a better understanding of the aims, targets, ingredients and theoretical underpinnings of project‐based interventions. In the wake of the COVID‐19 pandemic, the shift to telehealth moved interventions to a virtual context. The four case projects in this paper demonstrate that it is possible to conduct project‐based interventions via telehealth and provides a clear description to guide clinicians in their delivery. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work?: This work begins to build the foundation for more rigorous, empirical examination of project‐based interventions. By mapping project‐based interventions to the RTSS, core aims, targets and ingredients are established that can be objectively examined. This investigation also provides a road map for clinicians who wish to implement this complex intervention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Communication difficulties are common in people with dementia, and often present from an early stage. However, direct treatment options for people with dementia that positively influence their daily communication are scarce. Aims: To evaluate the potential impact and feasibility of a personalized logopaedic intervention. Methods & Procedures: A total of 40 community‐dwelling persons with dementia and their caregivers were recruited. Five experienced speech and language therapists (SLTs) delivered the six‐session Com‐mens intervention at home. Com‐mens aims to improve positive communication between people with dementia and their primary caregivers and comprises five elements: interactive history‐taking, dynamic observational assessment, education about the consequences of dementia on communication, development and use of personalized communication tools, use motivational, and person‐centred strategies by the SLT. We conducted a single‐group mixed‐methods pilot study with five measurements: baseline, directly after intervention, and at 3, 6 and 9 months follow‐up. Semi‐structured interviews and questionnaires for Experienced Communication in Dementia, quality of life, psychological well‐being and caregiver burden were conducted. Process evaluation was performed by interviewing participants, drop‐outs, SLTs and other stakeholders. Outcomes & Results: A total of 32 dyads completed the intervention. Repeated measures analyses revealed no significant changes over time. In the interviews, participants reported a positive impact on their feelings, increased communication skills and better coping with the diagnosis. Participants would recommend the intervention to others. Facilitators were timely delivery, personalized content and adequate reimbursement. Barriers were unfamiliarity with Com‐mens among referrers, an overburdened caregiver or disrupted family relationships. Conclusions & Implications: This newly developed logopaedic intervention is feasible and has a perceived positive impact on both people with dementia and their caregivers, which is confirmed by a stable pattern over a period of 1 year. Future comparative studies are needed to test the effectiveness of personalized interventions in this patient population. What this paper adds: What is already known on the subject?: SLTs are experts in the field of communication, but even though communication problems are common between people with dementia and their caregivers, there is a lack of logopaedic guidelines and materials for the direct treatment for this population. Interventions that are available either focus on (professional) caregivers only or aim to enhance cognitive functioning and do not target on joined communication. What this paper adds to the existing knowledge?: A newly developed intervention called Com‐mens can be provided by trained SLTs and takes an average of six 1‐h sessions. The intervention is perceived to be valuable and feasible for people with dementia and their caregivers, by the participants themselves, as well as by healthcare professionals and other stakeholders. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work?: Dissemination of this intervention will give SLTs skills, tools and materials to provide meaningful care to home‐dwelling persons with dementia and their caregivers. Also, persons with dementia and their caregivers will receive education and materials that can help them increase their understanding of communication problems, enhance their communication skills and better cope with the communication problems that result from dementia. We consider the Com‐mens intervention to be a valuable addition to the field of speech language therapy and dementia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Subjective well‐being (SWB) and quality of life (QOL) are intricately related constructs. Recent research shows both constructs share some facets, but are distinct entities. It is unclear, both internationally and in the Netherlands, if and how SLTs address SWB in clinical practice. The current study was set up to explore Dutch SLTs' perceptions of SWB in relation to the management of people with aphasia. Aims: To describe how Dutch SLTs, working with people with aphasia in a private practice or a healthcare setting, address patient's SWB during diagnosis and treatment, and to identify barriers and facilitators they experience when addressing SWB. Methods & Procedures: A qualitative research design with a phenomenological approach was used. SLTs from private practices and healthcare settings were invited to participate in individual interviews and a focus group. The data were analysed thematically using a combination of inductive and deductive methods. Outcomes & Results: Eight SLTs participated in the study. The SLTs' experiences were captured in four themes that emerged from the data: (1) SWB is a multifaceted concept and depends on patient‐specific factors: premorbid factors, life priorities and time post‐stroke; (2) SLTs experience more responsibility for patients' SWB than their profession allows; (3) collaboration between SLTs and patients, patients' network and other healthcare professionals is required to address SWB during diagnosis and treatment; and (4) misinterpretations are inevitable when SLTs or the patients' network address patients' SWB. Conclusions & Implications: The results showed that SLTs feel responsible for addressing SWB in the management of people with aphasia. Their perception of the concept of SWB is similar to the definition used in the literature and is multifaceted. They feel responsible for the part of SWB that is related to communicative functioning, but less so for the more heuristic aspects of SWB. This is related to their experienced limitation of influence on SWB, which for some leaves them feeling out of depth and uncertain about boundaries between professionals. Addressing SWB in a multidisciplinary team is therefore considered important in order to adequately and fully capture someone's SWB and reduce to clinicians' experienced burden and responsibility. What this paper addsWhat is already known on this subjectRecent studies suggest that quality of life measures may lack facets related to subjective well‐being (SWB). Aphasia is likely to impact on SWB of a stroke survivor, but it is unclear if and how SWB is addressed by speech and language therapists in diagnosis, and treatment of Dutch PWA.What this study addsThis study provides insight into the operationalization of SWB in Dutch clinical practice, including barriers SLTs experience when addressing SWB.Clinical implications of this studyMonitoring and influencing SWB of people with aphasia is a complex process, that SLTs consider only possible in multi‐disciplinary teams. Clear guidelines on roles and responsibilities between various disciplines involved are necessary to improve care for people with aphasia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The psychosocial impact of stroke and aphasia is considerable. Aims To explore UK speech-and-language therapists' (SLTs) clinical practice in addressing the psychological and social needs of people with aphasia, including their experiences of working with mental health professionals. Methods & Procedures A 22-item online survey was distributed to UK SLTs via the British Aphasiology Society mailing list and Clinical Excellence Networks. Results were analysed using descriptive statistics and qualitative content analysis. Outcomes & Results UK SLTs ( n = 124) overwhelmingly considered that addressing psychological well-being (93%) and social participation (99%) was part of their role. To achieve this, they frequently/very frequently used supportive listening (100%) and selected holistic goals collaboratively with clients (87%), including social goals (83%). However, only 42% felt confident in addressing the psychological needs of clients. The main barriers to addressing psychosocial well-being were time/caseload pressures (72%); feeling under-skilled/lack of training (64%), and lack of ongoing support (61%). The main barriers to referring on to mental health professionals were that mental health professionals were perceived as under-skilled when working with people with aphasia (44%); were difficult to access (41%); and provided only a limited service (37%). A main theme from the free-text responses was a concern that those with aphasia, particularly more severe aphasia, received inadequate psychological support due to the stretched nature of many mental health services; mental health professionals lacking skills working with aphasia; and SLTs lacking the necessary time, training and support. The main enablers to addressing psychosocial well-being were collaborative working between SLTs and stroke-specialist clinical psychologists; SLTs with training in providing psychological and social therapy; and ongoing support provided by the voluntary sector. Conclusions & Implications The vast majority of SLTs consider the psychosocial well-being of their clients, and work collaboratively with people with aphasia in selecting holistic goals. It is, however, of concern that most respondents felt they lacked confidence and received insufficient training to address psychological well-being. In order to improve psychological services for this client group, there is a strong case that stroke-specialist mental health professionals should strive to make their service truly accessible to people with even severe aphasia, which may involve working more closely with SLTs. Further, improving the skills and confidence of SLTs may be an effective way of addressing psychological distress in people with aphasia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Quality of life (QoL) is an important construct when assessing treatment outcomes. Aims To examine the relative contributions of functioning, psychological well-being and self-efficacy on self-perceived QoL with a sample of total laryngectomy patients in Australia who had surgery for advanced laryngeal cancer. Methods & Procedures In a cross-sectional study, 113 members of the Laryngectomy Associations of New South Wales and of Victoria, Australia, were recruited, and each was sent a series of questionnaires for postal return. Four psychometrically validated measures were used for participants to document their QoL, functioning (speech, swallowing), psychological well-being and general self-efficacy. Outcomes & Results Eighty-six (77%) questionnaires were returned and 83 were analysed. The cohort consists of 70 men and 13 women aged between 46 and 88 years. Overall, this sample of total laryngectomy survivors demonstrated significantly reduced physical health QoL ( p < 0.001) and social relationship QoL ( p = 0.011) and higher levels of depression ( p = 0.008) and anxiety ( p = 0.001) when compared with normative samples. This was in the context of them having higher than normal self-efficacy scores and, at worst, mild (self-rated) impairment of speech and of swallowing. Psychological well-being ( sr2 = 0.43, p < 0.001) had a stronger association than functioning (speech, swallowing, sr2 = 0.08, p < 0.05) for their psychological QoL. Psychological well-being ( sr2 = 0.17, p < 0.001) and not functioning ( sr2 = 0.05, p > 0.05) were significantly associated with social relationship QoL. Self-efficacy scores were significantly higher than norms in this cohort, but were not associated with either their psychological QoL or social relationship QoL, after controlling for psychological well-being and functioning. Conclusions & Implications For survivors of laryngeal cancer treated by total laryngectomy, it is important to be aware of the impact of psychological well-being (depression, anxiety, stress) on self-perceived QoL. In addition to rehabilitating function (speech, swallowing), specific interventions to assist these individuals better manage their psychological well-being will likely improve their perceived life satisfaction/QoL. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The broad life implications of acquired dysarthria are recognized, but they have received little attention in stroke management. Reports of group therapy, which may be a suitable approach to intervention, are not available for stroke-related dysarthria. Aims: To examine the operational feasibility of and response to a new eight-session weekly group intervention programme, Living with Dysarthria, designed for people with chronic dysarthria following stroke and their main communication partners. Methods & Procedures: The target participation was for programme completion by two groups of eight people with dysarthria (PWD) and available family members (FMs) or carers. An active recruitment strategy was undertaken from the speech and language therapy case records for the previous 6 years in two hospitals with combined annual stroke admissions of over 500 people. Twelve PWD and seven FMs were recruited (group 1: seven PWD and four FMs; group 2: five PWD and three FMs). Speech intelligibility, communication effectiveness, general well-being, quality of communication life, and knowledge of stroke and dysarthria were assessed pre- and post-programme. Each PWD and FM also set an individual goal and rated their achievement of this on a 0-10 scale. Outcomes & Results: Recruitment to the programme was lower than anticipated and below target. The 12 PWD were recruited from 62 initial contacts, which was the total number who according to available information met the criteria. The programme was viable: it ran to plan, with only minor content alterations, in community accommodation, and with good participant engagement. Group median score changes were in a positive direction for all measures and effect sizes ranged from 0.17 (quality of communication life) to 0.46 (intelligibility). Significant post-programme changes were present for intelligibility and knowledge of stroke and dysarthria ( p= 0.05). Participants' ratings of goal achievements ranged from 6 (some change) to 10 (a lot of change). Conclusions & Implications: The recruitment experience revealed a take-up rate of around 20% from PWD following stroke, informing future planning. The participant engagement and performance results from the piloting of the programme indicate that the Living with Dysarthria programme is viable and has potential for effecting positive change. Further testing is justified. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]