Search

Background: Evidence-based recommendations for a core outcome set (COS; minimum set of outcomes) for aphasia treatment research have been developed (the Research Outcome Measurement in Aphasia--ROMA, COS). Five recommended core outcome constructs: communication, language, quality of life, emotional well-being and patient-reported satisfaction/impact of treatment, were identified through three international consensus studies. Constructs were paired with outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) during an international consensus meeting (ROMA-1). Before the current study (ROMA-2), agreement had not been reached on OMIs for the constructs of communication or patient-reported satisfaction/impact of treatment. Aim: To establish consensus on a communication OMI for inclusion in the ROMA COS. Methods & Procedures: Research methods were based on recommendations from the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) Initiative. Participants with expertise in design and conduct of aphasia trials, measurement instrument development/testing and/or communication outcome measurement were recruited through an open call. Before the consensus meeting, participants agreed on a definition of communication, identified appropriate OMIs, extracted their measurement properties and established criteria for their quality assessment. During the consensus meeting they short-listed OMIs and participants without conflicts of interest voted on the two most highly ranked instruments. Consensus was defined a priori as agreement by [greater than or equal to] 70% of participants. Outcomes & Results: In total, 40 researchers from nine countries participated in ROMA-2 (including four facilitators and three-panel members who participated in pre-meeting activities only). A total of 20 OMIs were identified and evaluated. Eight short-listed communication measures were further evaluated for their measurement properties and ranked. Participants in the consensus meeting (n = 33) who did not have conflicts of interest (n = 29) voted on the top two ranked OMIs: The Scenario Test (TST) and the Communication Activities of Daily Living--3 (CADL-3). TST received 72% (n = 21) of 'yes' votes and the CADL-3 received 28% (n = 8) of 'yes' votes. Conclusions & Implications: Consensus was achieved that TST was the preferred communication OMI for inclusion in the ROMA COS. It is currently available in the original Dutch version and has been adapted into English, German and Greek. Further consideration must be given to the best way to measure communication in people with mild aphasia. Development of a patient-reported measure for satisfaction with/impact of treatment and multilingual versions of all OMIs of the COS is still required. Implementation of the ROMA COS would improve research outcome measurement and the quality, relevance, transparency, replicability and efficiency of aphasia treatment research.

Background: Whilst research into the wide-ranging needs of family members following traumatic brain injury (TBI) is well established, investigation into the specific needs of families in relation to supporting cognitive-communication difficulties, relationships and social participation is limited. Aims: To identify the family needs for cognitive-communication difficulties following TBI and to explore whether current services are meeting these needs. Methods & Procedures: Following a successful pilot, family members from the UK and Australia were invited via posters, social media and e-mail to take part in an anonymous, communication needs survey. Data arising from the thirty two closed questions (six eligibility, nine demographic and seventeen needs questions) were analysed using SPSS descriptive statistics. Data arising from one open question were analysed using qualitative content analysis. Outcomes & Results: A total of 102 family members from the UK (n = 89, 87%) and Australia (n = 13, 13%) completed the survey. The majority of respondents were female (n = 76; 75%), between the ages of 30 and 69 (n = 88; 87%), and either a parent or a partner of the person following TBI (n = 78;76%). Respondents rated information about expected recovery from cognitive-communication difficulties and training in helpful strategies as their most important needs. The majority of respondents (more than 60%) were not satisfied that any of their cognitive-communication needs had been fully met and high levels of unmet need remained evident at three years or more post-injury. Written information, communication partner training and counselling were identified as key supports. Conclusions & Implications: Families report high levels of unmet need for managing cognitive-communication difficulties following TBI. Access to written information and communication partner training should be available to families at various time points following TBI and not just in the early stages.

Developing, monitoring, and reporting of fidelity are essential and integral components to the design of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in stroke and aphasia. Treatment fidelity refers to the degree to which an intervention is delivered as intended and is directly related to the quality of the evidence generated by RCTs. Clear documentation of treatment fidelity in trials assists in the evaluation of the clinical implications of potential benefits attributed to the intervention. Consideration of the implementation requirements of a research-based intervention as intended in a clinical context is necessary to achieve similar outcomes for a clinical population. Despite this, treatment fidelity is rarely reported in RCTs of aphasia intervention. To describe fidelity strategies and develop core recommendations for developing, monitoring, and reporting of fidelity in aphasia intervention RCTs. Relevant conceptual frameworks were considered. The Behaviour Change Consortium comprehensive framework of fidelity was adopted. It includes five areas: study design, training providers, delivery of treatment, treatment receipt, and treatment enactment. We explored fidelity in RCTs with a range of complex aphasia interventions (e.g., ASK, Big CACTUS, COMPARE, FCET2EC, POLAR, SUPERB, and VERSE) and described how different trial design factors (e.g., phase of trial, explanatory vs. pragmatic, number and location of sites, and number and type of treatment providers) influenced the fidelity strategies chosen. Strategies were mapped onto the five areas of the fidelity framework with a detailed exploration of how fidelity criteria were developed, measured, and monitored throughout each trial. This information was synthesised into a set of core recommendations to guide aphasia researchers towards the adequate measurement, capture, and reporting of fidelity within future aphasia intervention studies. Treatment fidelity should be a core consideration in planning an intervention trial, a concept that goes beyond treatment adherence alone. A range of strategies should be selected depending on the phase and design of the trial being undertaken and appropriate investment of time and costs should be considered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Goal setting is key to stroke rehabilitation, but access for people with aphasia is challenging. Based on the Goal setting and Action Planning (G-AP) framework, we developed an accessible goal setting resource (Access G-AP). Access G-AP was designed using a three-phase, user-centred design process. Phase 1: Access G-AP Draft A was designed using evidence-based recommendations. Phase 2: Draft A was reviewed by stroke survivors with aphasia (focus groups 1&2) and rehabilitation staff (questionnaire). Phase 3: Suggested recommendations informed Access G-AP Draft B, which was further reviewed by stroke survivors with aphasia (focus group 3). The final version of Access G-AP was approved by stroke survivors with aphasia at a debrief meeting. Data were analysed using content analysis. Recommended design improvements included reducing text, adding bullet points, and diversifying images. Both participant groups highlighted that Access G-AP should be used collaboratively to support stroke survivor involvement. Staff recommended Access G-AP training and additional resources to support stroke survivors with severe aphasia. Access G-AP was co-developed to support people with aphasia to access and engage in stroke rehabilitation goal setting. Further research is required to establish the feasibility of Access G-AP in clinical practice. Evidence-based accessible formatting strategies and an iterative design process can inform the design of accessible goal setting resources. Accessible goal setting materials should be relevant to stroke survivors with aphasia and responsive to their needs. Rehabilitation staff require training and support to use accessible goal setting resources (like Access G-AP) with stroke survivors with aphasia, especially those with severe aphasia. Evaluation of the feasibility of Access G-AP in clinical practice is now required. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Goal setting is an essential rehabilitation activity. However, multidisciplinary rehabilitation staff goal-setting practice with stroke survivors with aphasia and associated training needs are not well understood. We designed, piloted, and conducted a survey of stroke rehabilitation staff in the UK, Australia, Aotearoa New Zealand, Canada, Ireland. Analysis included descriptive statistics, chi-square and Fisher's exact tests, and qualitative content analysis. We received 251 responses from 118 SLTs and 133 non-SLTs. Most reported setting goals with most or all people with aphasia (78%, 197/251); 57% (138/244) rarely or never provided an accessible copy of goals. All disciplines reported significantly less confidence setting goals with people with aphasia than without aphasia (p = 0.012, n = 119). Barriers to goal setting included the communication impairment (especially severe aphasia) and poor insight. Staff described feeling ill-equipped to support people with aphasia in goal setting; only 27% (67/251) had accessed training to do so. Rehabilitation staff described involving stroke survivors with aphasia in goal setting but lacked confidence doing so and receive inadequate training and support. Training should target multidisciplinary staff confidence and communication support strategies and resources so that people with aphasia and families are supported as goal-setting partners. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To establish international, multidisciplinary expert consensus on minimum participant characteristic reporting standards in aphasia research (DESCRIBE project). Methods: An international, three-round e-Delphi exercise and consensus meeting, involving multidisciplinary researchers, clinicians and journal editors working academically or clinically in the field of aphasia. Results: Round 1 of the DESCRIBE e-Delphi exercise (n = 156) generated 113 items, 20 of which reached consensus by round 3. The final consensus meeting (n = 19 participants) established DESCRIBE's 14 participant characteristics that should be reported in aphasia studies: age; years of education; biological sex; language of treatment/testing; primary language; languages used; history of condition(s) known to impact communication/cognition; history of previous stroke; lesion hemisphere; time since onset of aphasia; conditions arising from the neurological event; and, for communication partner participants, age, biological sex and relationship to person with aphasia. Each characteristic has been defined and matched with standard response options to enable consistent reporting. Conclusion: Aphasia research studies should report the 14 DESCRIBE participant characteristics as a minimum. Consistent adherence to the DESCRIBE minimum reporting standard will reduce research wastage and facilitate evidence-based aphasia management by enabling replication and collation of research findings, and translation of evidence into practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Stroke rehabilitation interventions are routinely personalized to address individuals' needs, goals, and challenges based on evidence from aggregated randomized controlled trials (RCT) data and meta-syntheses. Individual participant data (IPD) meta-analyses may better inform the development of precision rehabilitation approaches, quantifying treatment responses while adjusting for confounders and reducing ecological bias. Aim: We explored associations between speech and language therapy (SLT) interventions frequency (days/week), intensity (h/week), and dosage (total SLT-hours) and language outcomes for different age, sex, aphasia severity, and chronicity subgroups by undertaking prespecified subgroup network meta-analyses of the RELEASE database. Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and trial registrations were systematically searched (inception-Sept2015) for RCTs, including ⩾ 10 IPD on stroke-related aphasia. We extracted demographic, stroke, aphasia, SLT, and risk of bias data. Overall-language ability, auditory comprehension, and functional communication outcomes were standardized. A one-stage, random effects, network meta-analysis approach filtered IPD into a single optimal model, examining SLT regimen and language recovery from baseline to first post-intervention follow-up, adjusting for covariates identified a-priori. Data were dichotomized by age (⩽/> 65 years), aphasia severity (mild–moderate/ moderate–severe based on language outcomes' median value), chronicity (⩽/> 3 months), and sex subgroups. We reported estimates of means and 95% confidence intervals. Where relative variance was high (> 50%), results were reported for completeness. Results: 959 IPD (25 RCTs) were analyzed. For working-age participants, greatest language gains from baseline occurred alongside moderate to high-intensity SLT (functional communication 3-to-4 h/week; overall-language and comprehension > 9 h/week); older participants' greatest gains occurred alongside low-intensity SLT (⩽ 2 h/week) except for auditory comprehension (> 9 h/week). For both age-groups, SLT-frequency and dosage associated with best language gains were similar. Participants ⩽ 3 months post-onset demonstrated greatest overall-language gains for SLT at low intensity/moderate dosage (⩽ 2 SLT-h/week; 20-to-50 h); for those > 3 months, post-stroke greatest gains were associated with moderate-intensity/high-dosage SLT (3–4 SLT-h/week; ⩾ 50 hours). For moderate–severe participants, 4 SLT-days/week conferred the greatest language gains across outcomes, with auditory comprehension gains only observed for ⩾ 4 SLT-days/week; mild–moderate participants' greatest functional communication gains were associated with similar frequency (⩾ 4 SLT-days/week) and greatest overall-language gains with higher frequency SLT (⩾ 6 days/weekly). Males' greatest gains were associated with SLT of moderate (functional communication; 3-to-4 h/weekly) or high intensity (overall-language and auditory comprehension; (> 9 h/weekly) compared to females for whom the greatest gains were associated with lower-intensity SLT (< 2 SLT-h/weekly). Consistencies across subgroups were also evident; greatest overall-language gains were associated with 20-to-50 SLT-h in total; auditory comprehension gains were generally observed when SLT > 9 h over ⩾ 4 days/week. Conclusions: We observed a treatment response in most subgroups' overall-language, auditory comprehension, and functional communication language gains. For some, the maximum treatment response varied in association with different SLT-frequency, intensity, and dosage. Where differences were observed, working-aged, chronic, mild–moderate, and male subgroups experienced their greatest language gains alongside high-frequency/intensity SLT. In contrast, older, moderate–severely impaired, and female subgroups within 3 months of aphasia onset made their greatest gains for lower-intensity SLT. The acceptability, clinical, and cost effectiveness of precision aphasia rehabilitation approaches based on age, sex, aphasia severity, and chronicity should be evaluated in future clinical RCTs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]