Search

Background: Stroke profoundly affects quality of life (QOL), including loss of employment, reduced social activity, shrinking social networks and low mood. Dysgraphia (impaired writing) is a common symptom of aphasia yet is rarely targeted in rehabilitation. Recent technological advances might challenge this, since much communication is now conducted digitally through writing. The rehabilitation of writing may therefore help to address the wider consequences of stroke and aphasia. Aims: Can assistive technology (AT) training for people with dysgraphia: (1) improve written output, and are gains achieved only with AT? (2) improve reading comprehension scores, and are gains achieved only with AT? and (3) affect social participation, mood or QOL Methods and Procedures: Design A mixed‐methods, repeated measures, small group study design was adopted (qualitative outcomes will be reported elsewhere). Participants: Recruited from community settings, for example, Stroke Association communication support groups. Inclusion criteria: over 18 years old, aphasia due to stroke, acquired dysgraphia, writing more impaired than speech, fluent English prior to stroke, access to computer and Internet. Exclusion criteria: currently receiving speech and language therapy, significant cognitive impairment, neuromuscular/motor‐speech impairments/structural abnormalities, developmental dyslexia, uncorrected visual/auditory impairments. Procedures: Screening and diagnostic assessments at time T1 (first baseline). Outcome measures at T1; repeated at T2 (second baseline), T3 (end of intervention), T4 (3‐month follow up). Social participation assessment and cognitive monitoring at T2, T3, T4. Intervention: Seven–ten hours individual therapy weekly and additional email support. Participants were trained to operate Dragon NaturallySpeaking (speech to text package) and ClaroRead (read writing aloud). Outcome measures were administered on pen and paper (control) and on computer, with AT enabled only at T3, T4. Outcomes and Results: Computer narrative writing was significantly improved by AT training (Friedman's χ2 (3) = 8.27, p = 0.041), indicating a compensatory effect of AT. Though reading comprehension significantly improved in the computer condition (Friedman's χ2 (3) = 21.07, p = 0.001), gains could not be attributed to the AT. Gains were achieved only when measures were administered on the keyboard, with AT enabled. Thus, a compensatory rather than remediatory effect was suggested. Social network size significantly increased; there were no significant changes in mood/QOL. Individual success rates varied. Conclusion and Implications: The customisable AT training was acceptable to participants and resulted in significantly improved narrative writing. Compensatory AT interventions are a useful adjunct to remediatory writing interventions and may particularly support functional writing. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: What is already known on this subject: Writing is rarely spared in aphasia and may present as the most impaired communication modality. Yet, people with aphasia report that writing is seldom included in their rehabilitation. Many communication activities are now conducted digitally through writing, therefore rehabilitation of this is more important than ever before. This study sought to address whether an assistive technology (AT) software package can improve writing and whether any changes were compensatory or remediatory. What this study adds to existing knowledge: This group study found that AT training led to gains in written discourse and social network in people with aphasia and dysgraphia. Gains were not replicated in handwritten tasks, suggesting this was a compensatory therapeutic approach. What are the clinical implications of this work?: AT programs such as this may present speech and language therapists with a practical, pragmatic adjunct to writing or typing therapy, particularly for clients with chronic, intractable impairments for whom remediatory therapy may have a low chance of success. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Hearing loss is a chronic health condition that rises sharply with age. The way people respond to and cope with health conditions is influenced by their capacity to perform illness and treatment‐related work. The aim was to explore the cumulative burdens of living with hearing loss and the resources mobilised to ease the burdens. Methods: A qualitative design was used with semi‐structured interviews (online or in‐person) with participants recruited through audiology services and nonclinical services, such as lip‐reading classes. Forty‐six participants with hearing loss aged between 16 and 96 years were interviewed. An abductive approach, informed by May et al.'s burden of treatment theory, was used to analyse the data. Results: The illness burden involved participants working to make sense of their hearing loss, engaging in emotional work in response to changes in sound, social interactions and identity and coping with the daily frustrations required to communicate with others. Abandonment and uncertainty characterised the treatment burden; participants engaged in emotional work to adjust to hearing technology and deal with the uncertainty of how their hearing might progress. To ameliorate the burdens, participants drew on internal resources (psychological, health literacy, cognitive) and external resources (social support, financial, information, technology). Conclusions: The workload of hearing loss appears largely devolved to the patient and is not always visible. Our work indicates the need to widen approaches in audiological care through the implementation of lifeworld‐led care, family‐centred care and peer support to build support for those with hearing loss. Patient or Public Contribution: We developed the project in consultation with members of the public who have lived experience of hearing loss recruited through Aston University and volunteer links to audiology services. We also consulted people more likely to be affected by hearing loss adults including adults with learning disabilities, older adults in residential care and people from South Asia (Bangladeshi, Indian and Pakistani communities). These individuals commented on the study aims, interview schedule and participant recruitment practices. One of our co‐authors (expert by experience) contributed to the development and interpretation of themes and preparation of the final manuscript. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]