Search

Purpose: The objective of this study was to explore receptiveness of people with poststroke aphasia to receiving transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), including preferences for the treatment setting and schedule of tDCS delivery. Method: An online survey was distributed via e-mail, flyers, social media, and online newsletters to reach people with aphasia. Fisher's exact test examined the relationship of self-reported tDCS receptiveness to demographic, clinical, and other factors. Results: Fifty-seven surveys were returned, and 50 complete surveys were analyzed. Twenty-eight percent of respondents had previously heard of tDCS. Sixty-six percent reported they would receive tDCS if it could help their aphasia, and only 6% reported that they definitely would not. There were statistically significant relationships between being receptive to tDCS and (a) not currently working, (b) being receptive to speech-language therapy, and (c) greater acceptance of potential temporary risks associated with tDCS. Most individuals (73%) who would consider tDCS were equivalently open to receiving it in the clinic or at home, yet the majority (64%) were open to more frequent sessions at home than in the clinic. Most respondents indicated that they would consider having tDCS "forever if it helped" (clinic: 51%; home: 68%). Conclusions: This is the first study to query individuals with aphasia about their receptiveness to tDCS outside the context of an intervention study. Responses suggest that a large majority of people with poststroke aphasia might be open to receiving tDCS if it can ameliorate their aphasia. Limitations include the small sample size, which does not adequately represent the broader population of people with aphasia, and that the survey did not provide the level of tDCS education crucial to inform shared decision making and person-centered care. However, future work may benefit from considering the practical implications of research designs (e.g., high intensity treatment outside the home) that may not, in application, be widely acceptable to primary stakeholders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Few studies have investigated conversation therapy between a person with aphasia and a clinician. Furthermore, little information exists on generalisation of impairment-based stimulation treatment to conversational outcomes. Aim: The purpose of this preliminary study was to compare the effects of stimulation therapy and conversation therapy on conversational outcome measures in two cases. Method: We employed a single-subject AB1AB2A design with randomised ordering of interventions across two participants. Primary outcomes included 6-minute conversations coded for discourse functions of an utterance. Outcomes & Results: The participant who received stimulation therapy first demonstrated improved conversational outcomes after the first phase. The participant who received conversation therapy first demonstrated improved conversational outcomes after the first phase. Although improvements were made in each type of therapy, the highest gains in conversational production were during or following conversation therapy in either treatment order for both participants. Conclusion: Both types of therapy produced gains in conversational abilities. However, the small number of participants limits the generalisability of this study. Future research is needed to determine which participants may benefit most from conversation therapy and to improve the clinical feasibility of conducting and measuring conversational therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Communication of people with Parkinson's disease (PwPD) is negatively affected. For PwPD with communication difficulties, it is important to use self‐assessment tools as a primary assessment approach to evaluate their perspectives on communication. It is also important to evaluate PwPDs with self‐assessment scales in order to determine in which situations their communicative effectiveness is affected and to include them in the intervention plan. Aims: To create a Turkish version of the Communicative Effectiveness Survey‐Revised (CES‐R), to examine its validity and reliability, and to investigate its applicability in PwPD. Method: The study included 106 PwPD and 106 healthy participants. The original form of the CES‐R was adapted into Turkish according to international guidelines. Every participant completed the Turkish version of CES‐R and the Voice Handicap Index‐10 form. The adapted scale was retested 2 weeks later. Outcomes and Results: Because the Kaiser‐Meyer‐Olkin coefficient was 0.956 in the exploratory factor analysis of the CES‐R and p < 0.01 for Bartlett's Test, the data set is 'perfectly' suitable for factor analysis. In the explanatory factor analysis applied in the CES‐R scale, the total explanatory ratio of the two dimensions was determined as 63.5%, and the validity condition was met. Cronbach's alpha coefficient was 0.958 in the PwPD group and 0.955 in the control group and the scale was found to be at the 'high reliability' level. Conclusion: The CES‐R is a valid, reliable, and useable self‐assessment scale for Turkish PwPD. Furthermore, this adaptation research was developed to assess possible communication difficulties for PwPD. With this tool, difficulties in communication skills that can be identified by a comprehensive evaluation should also be studied in the intervention processes. What this paper adds: What is already known on the subject: Self‐assessment tools are suggested as a primary use when evaluating people with Parkinson's disease (PwPD) with communication difficulties. The CES‐R is one of these self‐assessment scales. However, the validity and reliability study of the Communicative Effectiveness Survey‐Revised (CES‐R) in Turkish has not been conducted. What this paper adds to existing knowledge: This study demonstrates the validity and reliability of the Turkish CES‐R scale and its applicability to PwPD. Furthermore, this scale can be used in assessment procedures for possible communication difficulties for PwPD. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work?: The scale, which is unidimensional in the literature, was found to have two dimensions with eigenvalues > 1 in the Discovery Factor analysis in this study. The first dimension was named communication in general situations (CGS) and the second dimension was named communication in difficult situations (CDS). It is thought that this scale will be useful in research and clinics for the comprehensive assessment of PwPD with communication difficulties before and after treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]