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]

Despite the importance of menstruation and the menstrual cycle to health, human rights, and sociocultural and economic wellbeing, the study of menstrual health suffers from a lack of funding, and research remains fractured across many disciplines. We sought to systematically review validated approaches to measure four aspects of changes to the menstrual cycle—bleeding, blood, pain, and perceptions—caused by any source and used within any field. We then evaluated the measure quality and utility for clinical trials of the identified instruments. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and four instrument databases and included peer-reviewed articles published between 2006 and 2023 that reported on the development or validation of instruments assessing menstrual changes using quantitative or mixed-methods methodology. From a total of 8,490 articles, 8,316 were excluded, yielding 174 articles reporting on 94 instruments. Almost half of articles were from the United States or United Kingdom and over half of instruments were only in English, Spanish, French, or Portuguese. Most instruments measured bleeding parameters, uterine pain, or perceptions, but few assessed characteristics of blood. Nearly 60% of instruments were developed for populations with menstrual or gynecologic disorders or symptoms. Most instruments had fair or good measure quality or clinical trial utility; however, most instruments lacked evidence on responsiveness, question sensitivity and/or transferability, and only three instruments had good scores of both quality and utility. Although we took a novel, transdisciplinary approach, our systematic review found important gaps in the literature and instrument landscape, pointing towards a need to examine the menstrual cycle in a more comprehensive, inclusive, and standardized way. Our findings can inform the development of new or modified instruments, which—if used across the many fields that study menstrual health and within clinical trials—can contribute to a more systemic and holistic understanding of menstruation and the menstrual cycle. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]