Search

Background: Post-stroke dysarthria rehabilitation should consider social participation for people with dysarthria, but before this approach can be adopted, an understanding of the psychosocial impact of dysarthria is required. Despite the prevalence of dysarthria as a result of stroke, there is a paucity of research into this communication disorder, particularly studies that address the experiences of individuals. The available literature focuses mainly on the perceptions of others or includes groups of mixed aetiologies. Aims: To investigate the beliefs and experiences of people with dysarthria as a result of stroke in relation to their speech disorder, and to explore the perceived physical, personal and psychosocial impacts of living with dysarthria. Methods & Procedures: Participants for this qualitative study were recruited from twelve hospitals in Scotland that served both rural and urban populations and afforded opportunity for comparison. Semi-structured, in-depth interviews were carried out over a 12-month period with 24 individuals with varying severity of dysarthria following stroke. The interviews were orthographically transcribed and coded using the NVivo package, which also facilitated identification of patterns using the constant comparative method. Outcomes & Results: The results of the study indicate that the effects of dysarthria following stroke extend beyond the physiological characteristics of the impairment. In turn, the resulting communication difficulties lead to changes in self-identity, relationships, social and emotional disruptions, and feelings of stigmatization or perceived stigmatization. The impact of dysarthria was found to be disproportionate to the physiological severity, with participants continually striving to get their speech back to "normal". Conclusions & Implications: The findings provide insight into the psychosocial impact of dysarthria following stroke. Speech and language therapy interventions need to go beyond the speech impairment to address and promote psychosocial well being, reduce the likelihood of feelings of stigmatization and changes in self-identity, irrespective of the severity of dysarthria. (Contains 2 tables.)

Aims: To evaluate effectiveness of transcutaneous tibial nerve stimulation (TTNS) for treating adults with overactive bladder (OAB) of idiopathic or neurogenic origin, using a systematic review of the literature. Methods: Systematic searches of four databases were undertaken between 1980 and 2017. Included studies investigated effects of TTNS on OAB. Study selection, data extraction, quality appraisal was performed by two independent reviewers. Narrative analysis was undertaken where meta‐analysis was not possible due to study heterogeneity. Meta‐analysis of RCTs was performed using a fixed effects model. Results: Ten RCTs and three prospective cohort studies involving 629 participants were reviewed. Meta‐analysis of two trials comparing TTNS with sham showed mean reduction in total ICIQ Urinary Incontinence Short Form (ICIQ‐UI SF) associated with TTNS of −3.79 (95% CI −5.82, −1.76; P = 0.0003, I2 = 25%). Narrative review showed TTNS and antimuscarinic treatment were equally effective (four trials), TTNS provided greater benefit for OAB symptoms than behavioral interventions (two trials), tibial nerve, and sacral foramen stimulation were equally effective but combined stimulation was most effective (one trial). Significant improvements in OAB symptoms were reported by 48‐93% participants and UI cure rates of 25‐45%. No adverse events were reported. Conclusions: Limited evidence is provided that TTNS is an effective, safe intervention for idiopathic OAB in adults and may be of benefit in those with neurogenic OAB. Further studies are essential to confirm these results as well as to determine efficacy and associated costs for specific patient groups, most effective stimulation dosage, duration of effect, and stimulation regimes for longer‐term maintenance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Evaluating the safety and acceptability of reusing catheters for intermittent catheterisation (IC) is one of the top 10 continence research priorities identified by the UK James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership in 2008. There are an estimated 50 000 IC users in England and this number is rising. Globally, both single-use catheters (thrown away after use) and multi-use/reusable ones (cleaned between uses) are used. Using multi-use catheters as well as single-use ones (mixed-use) could bring benefits (eg, reducing plastic waste and patients never running out of catheters) and offer more choice to users. Evidence is needed that mixed-use is at least as safe and acceptable as using only single-use catheters., Methods: The MultICath Trial is a non-inferiority randomised controlled trial involving 578 participants. The aim is to compare mixed-use catheter management with single-use catheter management over 12 months. Participants are randomised on a 1:1 basis to either mixed-use catheter management, which includes an evidence-based cleaning method for the multi-use catheters (intervention) or single-use catheter management (control). Following randomisation, participants are followed up for 12 months. The primary outcome is at least one episode of microbiologically confirmed symptomatic urinary tract infection with help-seeking or self-help behaviour over the 12-month follow-up period. Laboratory analysis of patient-initiated urine samples is blind. Secondary outcomes include antibiotic use, microhaematuria, visible blood on catheter/in urine, quality of life and health economics. A qualitative sub-study to examine participant experiences using mixed-use is included., Ethics and Dissemination: Ethical review was undertaken by South Central-Hampshire A Research Ethics Committee and favourable opinion was granted on 12 July 2019 (reference: 19/SC/0334). Written, informed consent to participate was obtained from all participants. Results will be disseminated in peer-reviewed publications, in the National Institute for Health and Care Research journal library and to participants and the public via a lay summary published on the trial website., Trial Registration Number: ISRCTN42028483., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: To assess the clinical effectiveness of two speech and language therapy approaches versus no speech and language therapy for dysarthria in people with Parkinson's disease., Design: Pragmatic, UK based, multicentre, three arm, parallel group, unblinded, randomised controlled trial., Setting: The speech and language therapy interventions were delivered in outpatient or home settings between 26 September 2016 and 16 March 2020., Participants: 388 people with Parkinson's disease and dysarthria., Interventions: Participants were randomly assigned to one of three groups (1:1:1): 130 to Lee Silverman voice treatment (LSVT LOUD), 129 to NHS speech and language therapy, and 129 to no speech and language therapy. LSVT LOUD consisted of four, face-to-face or remote, 50 min sessions each week delivered over four weeks. Home based practice activities were set for up to 5-10 mins daily on treatment days and 15 mins twice daily on non-treatment days. Dosage for the NHS speech and language therapy was determined by the local therapist in response to the participants' needs (estimated from prior research that NHS speech and language therapy participants would receive an average of one session per week over six to eight weeks). Local practices for NHS speech and language therapy were accepted, except for those within the LSVT LOUD protocol. Analyses were based on the intention to treat principle., Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcome was total score at three months of self-reported voice handicap index., Results: People who received LSVT LOUD reported lower voice handicap index scores at three months after randomisation than those who did not receive speech and language therapy (-8.0 points (99% confidence interval -13.3 to -2.6); P<0.001). No evidence suggests a difference in voice handicap index scores between NHS speech and language therapy and no speech and language therapy (1.7 points (-3.8 to 7.1); P=0.43). Patients in the LSVT LOUD group also reported lower voice handicap index scores than did those randomised to NHS speech and language therapy (-9.6 points (-14.9 to -4.4); P<0.001). 93 adverse events (predominately vocal strain) were reported in the LSVT LOUD group, 46 in the NHS speech and language therapy group, and none in the no speech and language therapy group. No serious adverse events were recorded., Conclusions: LSVT LOUD was more effective at reducing the participant reported impact of voice problems than was no speech and language therapy and NHS speech and language therapy. NHS speech and language therapy showed no evidence of benefit compared with no speech and language therapy., Trial Registration: ISRCTN registry ISRCTN12421382., Competing Interests: Competing interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at www.icmje.org/disclosure-of-interest/ and declare: no support from any organisation for the submitted work or describe if any; no financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

An open study was carried out to assess, primarily, the safety and tolerability of Aesculus hippocastanum in the treatment of CVI. Patients underwent 8 consecutive weeks of treatment and were asked to take one 50 mg Aesculus hippocastanum tablet, twice daily. In total, 91 adverse events were reported, of which only 4 were rated as probably related to the study drug. Patients judged the tolerability of the study medication in the majority of the cases at visits 2 and 3 (90 and 95%, respectively) to be "good" or "fairly good." Only 2 patients rated tolerability as poor at visit 3. For each of the symptoms investigated the difference in the median value between baseline and visit 3 was found to be statistically significant and both the ankle and lower leg circumference decreased. The PPG measurements were rejected after analysis since validation measurements carried out after the trial showed that the PPG technique had an internal error of around 30%. Nevertheless, the majority of patients rated efficacy to be "very good" or "good," with only 10 patients reporting no effect by the end of the study. The results of this study indicate that Aesculaforce 50 mg tablets are a safe, well-tolerated and efficacious treatment for Widmer stage I and II CVI.