Search

Many people with aphasia (language impairment post-stroke) want to know their prognosis for recovery, yet current understanding of their experience of receiving prognoses is limited. Such insight is necessary to inform clinical practice in formulating and delivering aphasia prognoses, especially given the psycho-emotional distress and secondary adverse effects on recovery associated with conversations about prognosis. We sought an in-depth understanding of the perspectives of people with aphasia in relation to receiving prognoses post-stroke, with the aim of informing an evidence-based approach to aphasia prognostication in clinical practice. Semi-structured interviews, facilitated by communication support strategies, were conducted one-to-one with eight people with aphasia (ranging from mild to very severe) 3-12 months post-stroke. Reflexive thematic analysis was used to analyse the qualitative data, yielding two over-arching themes: (1) How would you know without knowing me?; (2) I need to know, but I don't want to know. Our findings illustrate issues of mistrust within the patient-clinician relationship, and complex emotions relating to hope and post-stroke adjustment. The present insight into the lived experience of receiving aphasia prognoses highlights the need for focused consideration of personal definitions of normalcy, measures for fostering trust, and the role of prognostic uncertainty.

Purpose: “Self-management” empowers individuals to take responsibility for their healthcare through skill-building, personal growth, and self-efficacy related to chronic health condition management. Self-management approaches may benefit people with aphasia (PwA); however, PwA are often excluded from stroke self-management research and there is no published research reporting on aphasia-specific self-management programs. Communication partners (CPs) are involved in the rehabilitation and day-to-day lives of PwA, thus giving them unique insights and knowledge of PwA needs. The present study aimed to investigate CP experiences and perspectives regarding aphasia self-management and to explore CP perceptions of the use of technology in aphasia self-management. Methods: In-depth, semi-structured interviews with 14 CPs living in Australia. Interview data was analysed using qualitative content analysis. Results: Analysis revealed six core themes: (1) aphasia self-management is embedded into everyday life, (2) CPs provide comprehensive self-management support, (3) speech-language pathologists (SLPs) provide tools and support to enable PwA to self-manage, (4) aphasia self-management can be enhanced by technological supports, (5) potential positive outcomes of aphasia self-management, and (6) factors influencing successful aphasia self-management. Conclusions: Aphasia self-management programs should focus on individual needs, functional communication in daily life, and social interaction. PwA and CPs are central to these programs, assisted by SLPs. Technology should be explored to augment aphasia self-management.Implications for Rehabilitation Communication partners suggest that people with aphasia are already engaging in aspects of self-management and that more formal aphasia-specific self-management approaches may be beneficial. Dedicated aphasia self-management programs should be situated in daily life with a focus on functional communication, life participation, confidence, and independence. Communication partners, speech-language pathologists, and technology are key support sources for aphasia self-management. Further input should be sought from communication partners in the development of aphasia self-management programs.

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.Implications for RehabilitationAphasia 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. 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.

In clinical practice and in research, aphasia measurement instruments are used for many reasons: to screen and diagnose, to identify deficits and strengths, and to measure outcomes. A proliferation...

This study aimed to investigate if a single, early learning experience in an aged care setting could influence speech-language pathology students': (1) attitudes towards older people; (2) confidence in communicating with older people; and (3) career aspirations in aged care.Ninety first-year undergraduate speech-language pathology students participated in a single visit to an aged care community centre. Students participated in recreational activities alongside older people and engaged in conversation. Before and after the visit, students completed surveys which examined their attitudes towards older people (UCLA Geriatrics Attitudes Scale) and self-perceived communication confidence. A Learning Reactionnaire, examining satisfaction with the experience and career aspirations, was completed post-visit. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics and non-parametric tests. Qualitative data were analysed using inductive content analysis.Students demonstrated positive changes in their attitudes towards older people and increased communication confidence. Students reported increased interest in future employment in aged care. High satisfaction towards the learning experience was reported.These preliminary findings indicate that a single, early learning experience in an aged care setting can positively shape the attitudes and self-perceived communication skills of first-year speech-language pathology students and help foster interest in pursuing a career in aged care.

Background: An important goal of people living with aphasia, aphasia organizations and professionals who work with aphasia is increased awareness of aphasia by the public. However, surveys of the public awareness of aphasia around the world and over time suggest that public knowledge of aphasia is poor. Aims: The aim of this article is to examine the literature on aphasia awareness and aphasia awareness campaigns, and to propose a strategic research agenda to move awareness building forward. Main Contribution: Aphasia awareness campaigns appear to have had minimal impact on knowledge of aphasia by the general public. Potential problems with aphasia awareness building were identified including a lack of a unified and compelling message across awareness campaigns, lack of coordination across organizations and campaigns, tendency to target audiences already familiar with aphasia, failure to base campaigns on theory and research from disciplines such as marketing, health promotion and communication research, failure to involve people with aphasia, their families and health-care professionals in the co-design of campaigns and no evidence that the impact of campaigns has been evaluated. Conclusions: A strategic research agenda is needed in order to increase the effectiveness, co-design, and co-evaluation of aphasia awareness campaigns worldwide. The authors propose an international effort and comprehensive research agenda to address aphasia awareness.

© 2019, © 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group. Background: Speech-language pathologists (SLPs) measure outcomes to gauge the impact of their interventions and to inform best care for clients. Previous research has explored outcome measurement practices in aphasia rehabilitation, however the factors driving clinician behaviour have not been examined. Aim: To explore current clinical practice and perceived barriers and facilitators to aphasia outcome measurement. Methods and Procedures: Australian SLPs who worked clinically with people with aphasia completed a cross-sectional online survey. Current practice was explored using a combination of multiple-choice questions (with open-text response options) and Likert rating scales. Barriers and facilitators to outcome measurement were explored through ratings of statements aligned with the Theoretical Domains Framework. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics and cross-tabulations. Outcome and Results: Data from 74 Australian SLPs were included. All SLPs reported measuring outcomes and these most frequently related to communication and language. SLPs reported using a diverse range of outcome measures across construct areas and stage-post stroke of service provision, with more than 80 unique instruments/approaches identified. The most frequently used outcome measurement instruments/approaches were: The Western Aphasia Battery–Revised (WAB-R) for language; the Therapy Outcome Measures/Australia Therapy Outcome Measures (TOMs/AusTOMS) for communication, participation, and quality of life; and Goal Attainment Scaling for psychological and carer/significant other outcomes. Overall, SLPs identified more facilitators than barriers to outcome measurement. The main barriers related to the theoretical domains “behavioural regulation” (managing or changing actions) and “memory, attention and decision-making processes” (ability to retain information, focus selectively and choose between alternatives). The main facilitators related to the theoretical domains “beliefs about consequences” (acceptance of the truth, reality, or validity about outcomes of a behaviour) and “social/professional role and identity” (a coherent set of behaviours and displayed personal qualities in a social or work setting). Conclusions: All SLPs reported measuring outcomes with clients with aphasia and these primarily related to language and communication. The outcome measurement instruments/approaches used were heterogeneous within construct areas. SLPs see outcome measurement as part of their role and believe it to be an important activity, however report a need for training and workplace systems and strategies to support optimal practices. The results of this study may inform the development of theoretically informed implementation interventions which seek to improve SLP outcome measurement practice in aphasia rehabilitation.

Purpose: This study aimed to explore family members’ experiences and preferences for receiving aphasia information during the early phases of post-stroke care.Method: Sixty-five family members comp...

Background: Self-management approaches are routinely used in chronic conditions to enable patients to take responsibility for their own care. A self-management approach may be appropriate for indiv...

Background: People with aphasia (PWA) and their families (PWA-F) have conveyed that the receipt of information and education is a key component of rehabilitation which supports access to services a...

In their lead article, Dietz and Boyle (This issue) consider the evolution of discourse outcome measurement in aphasia rehabilitation, positing an urgent need for standardisation. We are undeniable...

Access to aphasia rehabilitation diminishes over time due to limited resources within the health care system. This results in many people with chronic aphasia being unable to access ongoing rehabil...

Background: Clinicians have expressed frustration at the lack of strong evidence for aphasia treatments. Inconsistent outcome measurement practices across treatment trials have negatively impacted the quality and strength of evidence for aphasia interventions. Core outcome sets (COSs; minimum sets of outcomes/outcome measures) are increasingly being used to maximise the quality, relevancy, transparency, and efficiency of health treatment research. The current study is the third in a trilogy of stakeholder perspectives to inform the development of a COS for aphasia treatment research.Aim: To identify essential aphasia treatment outcomes from the perspective of an international sample of clinicians and managers working in aphasia rehabilitation.Methods & Procedures: A three-round e-Delphi exercise was conducted with aphasia clinicians and managers. In total, 265 clinicians and 53 managers (n = 318) from 25 countries participated in round 1. In round 1, participants responded to the open-ended questi...

We would like to thank the aphasia researchers who have contributed commentary to this forum. Their considered responses encourage debate and provide confirmation of the timeliness and importance of finding collaborative solutions to issues in outcome measurement...

Background: Aphasia treatment research lacks a uniform approach to outcome measurement. A wide range of outcome instruments are used across trials and there is a lack of research evidence exploring the outcomes most important to stakeholders. This lack of standardisation produces research outcomes that are difficult to compare and combine, limiting the potential to strengthen treatment evidence through meta-analysis and data pooling. The current heterogeneity in aphasia treatment research outcome measurement may be addressed through the development of a core outcome set (COS)—an agreed standardised set of outcomes for use in treatment trials.Aims: This article aims to provide a rationale and agenda for the development of a COS for aphasia treatment research.Main Contribution: A review of the literature reveals heterogeneity in the way outcome measurement is performed in aphasia treatment research. COSs have been developed in a wide range of health fields to introduce standardisation to research outcome me...

(2018). Report from ROMA: an update on the development of a core outcome set for aphasia research. Aphasiology: Vol. 32, International Aphasia Rehabilitation Conference (IARC) September 2018, pp. 241-242.

This commentary aims to extend the debate of the lead article authors (Wylie, McAllister, Davidson, and Marshall, 2013) by translating the nine recommendations of the World Report on Disability into a plan of action for the aphasia community. Solutions for the advancement of aphasia science and services are presented at international (macro), national (meso), and local (micro) levels. Implications for speech-language pathologists and aphasia service delivery are discussed. An overarching call to action is the need for speech-language pathologists to support a strong and vibrant aphasia community at all levels, so that the voices of people with aphasia can be heard.