Search

Background: Stroke survivors with aphasia want to improve their everyday talking (discourse). In current UK practice, 90% of speech and language therapists believe discourse assessment and treatment is part of their role but are hampered by barriers in resources, time and expertise. There is a clinical need for well-articulated discourse assessment and treatments. LUNA is a multi-level treatment targeting words, sentences and discourse macrostructure in personal stories that addresses this clinical need. Objectives: This study aimed to assess the feasibility and acceptability of LUNA trial procedures in a randomised waitlist-controlled trial; and to evaluate preliminary efficacy. Methods: This paper reports a phase II, waitlist-controlled, proof-of-concept feasibility trial. Participants with chronic aphasia (n = 28) were recruited from the community and randomised to an Immediate (n = 14) or Delayed (n = 14) group. LUNA treatment was delivered twice weekly for 10 weeks via the videoconferencing technology, Zoom. Feasibility was assessed in terms of participant recruitment and retention, adherence, missing data, and treatment fidelity. Preliminary treatment efficacy was assessed in terms of between group differences in outcome measures relating to discourse, language, and psychosocial state. Results: The remote LUNA trial was feasible: 85% of those eligible consented to the trial; trial retention was 86%; 87% of treatment sessions were delivered as scheduled, and 79% of participants completed 80%+ of the treatment programme; data was missing only for participants who withdrew; treatment fidelity was high at 92% adherence; and only one clinical outcome measure demonstrated ceiling effects. ANCOVA analysis of the clinical outcome measures revealed group differences with medium and large effect sizes, indicating, improvements in the production of words, sentences, discourse macrostructure, overall language functioning (WAB-R), and psychosocial state (VAMS) following LUNA treatment. For most outcomes measured, similar treatment benefits were suggested in a secondary, non-parametric analysis. Conclusions: Large-scale evaluation of the clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness of LUNA is warranted and supported by these findings. Trial registration: Clinical trials registration: NCT05847023 (clinical trials.gov). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Speech and language therapy provision for aphasia (a language disorder) post stroke has been studied over time through surveys completed by speech and language therapists. This paper revisits provision based on what was received by 278 patients in 21 UK speech and language therapy departments in 2014-2016., Aims: To explore the speech and language therapy received by community dwelling people with post stroke aphasia in the UK., Methods and Procedures: A quantitative content analysis was conducted by two speech and language therapist researchers. Therapy goals recorded were coded into categories and subcategories. Descriptive statistics were used to identify the frequency with which goal categories were targeted, average therapy time received, length and frequency of therapy sessions, personnel involved and mode of delivery., Outcomes and Results: Forty-five percent of participants were in receipt of therapy in the three month window observed. Six goal categories were identified. Rehabilitation was the most frequent (60%) followed by enabling (17.2%), review (4.3%), assessment (3.6%), supportive (3.5%) and activity to support therapy (2.8%). The median amount of therapy received in three months was 6.3 hours at an average of one 60-minute session every two weeks. Seventy-seven percent of therapy sessions were delivered by qualified speech and language therapists and 23% by assistants. Ninety percent of sessions were one to one, face to face sessions whilst 9.5% were group sessions., Discussion: In line with previous reports, speech and language therapy for community dwelling stroke survivors with aphasia is restricted. Rehabilitation is a large focus of therapy but the intensity and dose with which it is provided is substantially lower than that required for an effective outcome. Despite this, one to one face to face therapy is favoured. More efficient methods to support more therapeutic doses of therapy are not commonly used in routine clinical services., Competing Interests: The authors have declared no competing interests exist.