Search

Background: Many people with aphasia have word‐finding difficulties, with some showing particular difficulties with verbs. Picture‐naming therapy is often used to improve naming, but gains are usually limited to therapy items and do not transfer to conversation. Therapy where words are produced in sentences and in real‐life activities may be more effective. Aims: The current pilot study investigated whether an activity‐oriented therapy approach would be accepted and viable if implemented in a community setting, and whether communicating whilst cooking was more beneficial than using paper‐based activities. If successful, it would be expected that verb production would improve in structured and unstructured tasks in both naming and narrative tasks. Methods & Procedures: The study employed a case‐series repeated‐measures design, with testing of treated and control items. Seven adults with anomia participated, although only five completed the full programme. Participants were divided into two groups and each group completed both treatments, but in different orders. Each treatment was employed for six 2‐h sessions over a 3‐week period. Outcomes & Results: Naming of both treated and untreated verbs showed a statistically significant improvement following both treatments and this continued into the maintenance phase. There was a numerical but not statistically significant gain in the variety of verbs used in spoken narratives. Participants predominantly chose positive terms to describe their experience of the programme, but did not prefer one therapy over the other. Conclusions & Implications: Preliminary findings suggest that an activity‐oriented therapy approach, whether it involves carrying out tasks or paper‐based activities, can result in clinically meaningful improvements for people with chronic aphasia. Further research using a randomized control trial is required to determine whether cooking therapy alone is effective. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rationale, aims and objectives Our aim was to evaluate the effectiveness of a Post-it® note to increase response rates and shorten response times to a 4-month postal follow-up questionnaire sent to participants taking part in the Collaborative Care in Screen-Positive Elders (CASPER) trials. Method Our trial was a two-arm randomized controlled trial comparing response rates to questionnaires with a printed Post-it® note (intervention) and without (control), nested in multi centred randomized controlled trials of older people with varying levels of depressive symptoms; the CASPER+ and CASPER Self Help for those At Risk of Depression (SHARD) trials. A total of 611 participants were eligible and randomized. The primary outcome was response rates, secondary outcomes were time to response and need for a reminder. Results Of 297 participants, 266 (89.6%) returned their 4-month questionnaire in the post-it note arm, compared with 282 of 314 participants (89.8%) in the control arm (OR = 0.97, 95% CI: 0.57, 1.65, P = 0.913). There were no statistically significant differences in time to respond or the need to be sent a reminder. Patients with a major depressive episode were more likely to return questionnaires with post-it notes ( P of interaction = .019). Conclusion There was no significant difference in response rates, time to response, or the need for a reminder between the intervention and control at 4-month follow up for older people with depressive symptoms. However, there was a significant interaction between the Post-it® note group and level of depression. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives Health care providers frequently issue a verbal warning before venipuncture. Communications that induce negative expectations in patients can lead to the 'nocebo' response, defined as experiencing greater pain. But is this also true for 'sharp scratch'? Methods The study was conducted across 4 U.K. hospitals. Two separate surveys of health care providers and patients explored the prevalence, phraseology, rationale, and reaction to verbal warnings before venipuncture. Blinded adult patients already attending an outpatient department during a 2-week period were randomized to hearing a 'sharp scratch' or the verbal cue 'ready?' immediately before venipuncture. They were also asked to rate their pain (the primary outcome). Results 77% of 117 health care providers surveyed issued a verbal warning before venipuncture; 73% used 'sharp scratch'. Of 62 patients surveyed, 56% agreed that 'sharp scratch' accurately describes venipuncture, and 64% agreed that they prefer 'sharp scratch' to no warning. With increasing age, a preference came for an alternative warning to 'sharp scratch' ( P = 0.039) and to be distracted by conversation ( P = 0.002). Of 192 patients in the randomized study, there was no difference in pain between the 'sharp scratch' and 'ready' groups. The numeric rating scores were 0.74 SD 1.06 vs. 0.88 SD 1.18, respectively. ( P = 0.493). Conclusions Most health care providers use the verbal warning 'sharp scratch' before venipuncture. Most patients find this acceptable and prefer it to no warning. An exception may be elderly patients, who may prefer to be distracted by conversation. 'Sharp scratch' makes no difference to the pain experienced compared with a verbal cue. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]