Search

For people with post-stroke aphasia, "Will I get better?" is a question often asked, but one that is intellectually and emotionally demanding for speech pathologists to answer. Speech pathologists' formulation and delivery of aphasia prognoses is varied and there is limited evidence for optimising practice. We aimed to understand speech pathologists' clinical experiences, reasoning, and support needs in aphasia prognostication. Twenty-five Australian speech pathologists working with people with aphasia participated in individual, semi-structured interviews. Their age, level of experience, work setting, and location were maximally varied. Interview responses were analysed qualitatively using thematic analysis. Five themes were drawn from the interviews: (1) prognostic challenges are shared but not voiced; (2) truth is there's no quick fix; (3) recovery is more than words; (4) the power of words; and, (5) prognostic competence is implicit. Speech pathologists use implicit competencies to formulate and deliver aphasia prognoses. A patient-centred, holistic contextualisation of aphasia recovery may enable realistic, optimistic, and constructive conversations about prognosis. These conversations may have therapeutic potential if prognostic uncertainty, emotional adjustment, and conditional outcomes are carefully addressed. Future research should seek to understand the perceptions and preferences of people with aphasia and their significant others. Aphasia prognostication in clinical practice is complex and nuanced, thus increased clinical and research focus is warranted to ensure key stakeholder needs are met. Conversations about prognosis may be more meaningful to people with aphasia if recovery is conceptualised as encompassing impairment, activity, and participation outcomes. Given the implicit competencies required for prognostication, a structured approach to reflective practice and experience-based training may be beneficial. Conversations about prognosis may have therapeutic value, but further research is needed to explore this potential. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Prognostication is a complex clinical task that involves forming a prediction about recovery and communicating prognostic information to patients and families. In aphasia, recovery is difficult to predict and evidence‐based guidance on prognosis delivery is lacking. Questions about aphasia prognosis commonly arise, but it is unknown how speech pathologists formulate and deliver information about expected recovery. An understanding of current practice in prognostication is needed to develop evidence‐based guidelines for this process, and is necessary in order to ensure successful future implementation of recommended practice regarding prognosis delivery. Aims: To identify the factors speech pathologists consider important when responding to questions about aphasia prognosis; to examine how they respond in different scenarios; and to evaluate their current attitudes towards aphasia prognostication. Methods & Procedures: A total of 54 speech pathologists participated in an online survey featuring hypothetical aphasia prognosis delivery scenarios, short‐response questions and ratings. Open responses were analysed thematically. Multiple‐choice responses were analysed using descriptive statistics and non‐parametric tests. Outcomes & Results: Speech pathologists regarded factors relating to the nature and severity of post‐stroke deficits, an individual's level of motivation and the availability of social support as most important for forming an aphasia prognosis. When delivering prognostic information, considerations of the recipient's emotional well‐being, hope and expectations, and comprehension of information were regarded as most important. Speech pathologists' prognosis responses varied in content and manner of communication. The content of the responses included predictions of recovery and information about various attributes and activities contributing to recovery. Prognostic information was most frequently communicated through qualitative probability expressions, general statements and uncertainty‐based expressions. A need for more professional support in aphasia prognostication was indicated. Conclusions & Implications: There is variation in the way speech pathologists respond to questions about aphasia prognosis, and it is unknown how these conversations affect people with aphasia and their significant others. Further research to understand speech pathologists' clinical reasoning and professional support needs, and the perspectives of people living with aphasia, may help to develop an evidence‐based approach to prognostication in aphasia. What this paper addsWhat is already known on this subjectQuestions about aphasia prognosis are difficult to answer. Current methods for predicting aphasia recovery are yet to demonstrate the reliability and individual specificity required for clinical application. At present, there is no evidence‐based guidance or support for prognosis delivery in aphasia.What this study adds to existing knowledgeThere is variation in the way speech pathologists predict aphasia recovery, the prognostic information they deliver and the manner in which they communicate prognoses. Current approaches to aphasia prognostication are reliant on experience and professional judgement, and speech pathologists desire more support for undertaking this task.What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work?Speech pathologists lack a consistent approach to aphasia prognostication and desire more support in this task. The present findings offer insight into clinician attitudes and practice, and provide a direction for future research to establish best‐practice guidelines for this complex and demanding area of aphasia management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: This post hoc study investigated coverbal gesture patterns in two persons with chronic Wernicke''s aphasia. They had both received therapy focusing on multimodal communication therapy, and their pre- and post-therapy verbal and gestural skills in face-to-face conversational interaction with their speech therapist were analysed by administering a partial barrier Referential Communication Task (RCT). The RCT sessions were reviewed in order to analyse: (a) participant coverbal gesture occurrence and types when in speaker role, (b) distribution of iconic gestures in the RCT communicative moves, (c) recognisable semantic content, and (d) the ways in which gestures were combined with empty or paraphasic speech. At post-therapy assessment only one participant showed improved communication skills in spite of his persistent language deficits. The improvement corresponded to changes on all gesturing measures, suggesting thereby that his communication relied more on gestural information. No measurable changes were observed for the non-responding participant—a finding indicating that the coverbal gesture measures used in this study might account for the different outcomes. These results point to the potential role of gestures in treatment aimed at fostering recovery from severe fluent aphasia. Moreover, this pattern of improvement runs contrary to a view of gestures used as a pure substitute for lexical items, in the communication of people with severe fluent aphasia. Learning outcomes: The readers will describe how to assess and interpret the patterns of coverbal gesturing in persons with fluent aphasia. They will also recognize the potential role of coverbal gestures in recovery from severe fluent aphasia. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]