Search

High-intensity Constraint-Induced Aphasia Therapy Plus (CIAT-Plus) and Multi-Modality Aphasia Therapy (M-MAT) are effective interventions for chronic post-stroke aphasia but challenging to provide in clinical practice. Providing these interventions may be more feasible at lower intensities, but comparative evidence is lacking. We therefore explored feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary efficacy of the treatments at a lower intensity. A multisite, single-blinded, randomized Phase II trial was conducted within the Phase III COMPARE trial. Groups of participants with chronic aphasia from the usual care arm of the COMPARE trial were randomized to M-MAT or CIAT-Plus, delivered at the same dose as the COMPARE trial but at lower intensity (6 hours/week × 5 weeks rather than 15 hours/week × 2 weeks). Blinded assessors measured aphasia severity (Western Aphasia Battery-Revised Aphasia Quotient), word retrieval, connected speech, multimodal communication, functional communication, and quality of life immediately post interventions and after 12 weeks. Feasibility and acceptability were explored. Of 70 eligible participants, 77% consented to the trial; 78% of randomized participants completed intervention and 98% of assessment visits were conducted. Fatigue and distress ratings were low with no related withdrawals. Adverse events related to the trial (n = 4) were mild in severity. Statistically significant treatment effects were demonstrated on word retrieval and functional communication and both interventions were equally effective. Low–moderateintensity CIAT-Plus and M-MAT were feasible and acceptable. Both interventions show preliminary efficacy at a low–moderate intensity. These results support a powered trial investigating these interventions at a low–moderate intensity.

Although language deficits are the primary area of weakness, people with poststroke aphasia often experience challenges with nonlinguistic cognitive skills, including attention processing. The purpose of this review is to synthesize the evidence for the relationship between attention deficits and language deficits in people with poststroke aphasia. Three different types of studies are reviewed: (1) studies exploring whether people with poststroke aphasia exhibit concomitant attention and language deficits, (2) studies explicitly exploring the relationship between attention and language deficits in people with poststroke aphasia, and (3) either language or attention (or both) treatment studies exploring whether treatment gains in one domain generalize to the other. In the last section, we briefly review research evidence for the neural basis of the attention-language relationship in aphasia.

Background We require high-quality information on the current burden, the types of therapy and resources available, methods of delivery, care pathways and long-term outcomes for people with aphasia. Aim To document and inform international delivery of post-stroke aphasia treatment, to optimise recovery and reintegration of people with aphasia. Methods & Procedures Multi-centre, prospective, non-randomised, open study, employing blinded outcome assessment, where appropriate, including people with post-stroke aphasia, able to attend for 30 minutes during the initial language assessment, at first contact with a speech and language therapist for assessment of aphasia at participating sites. There is no study-mandated intervention. Assessments will occur at baseline (first contact with a speech and language therapist for aphasia assessment), discharge from Speech and Language Therapy (SLT), 6 and 12-months post-stroke. Our primary outcome is changed from baseline in the Amsterdam Nijmegen Everyday Language Test (ANELT/Scenario Test for participants with severe verbal impairments) at 12-months post-stroke. Secondary outcomes at 6 and 12 months include the Therapy Outcome Measure (TOMS), Subjective Index of Physical and Social Outcome (SIPSO), Aphasia Severity Rating Scale (ASRS), Western Aphasia Battery Aphasia Quotient (WAB-AQ), stroke and aphasia quality of life scale (SAQoL-39), European Quality of Life Scale (EQ-5D), lesion description, General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12), resource use, and satisfaction with therapy provision and success. We will collect demography, clinical data, and therapy content. Routine neuroimaging and medication administration records will be accessed where possible; imaging will be pseudonymised and transferred to a central reading centre. Data will be collected in a central registry. We will describe demography, stroke and aphasia profiles and therapies available. International individual participant data (IPD) meta-analyses will examine treatment responder rates based on minimal detectable change & clinically important changes from baseline for primary and secondary outcomes at 6 and 12 months. Multivariable meta-analyses will examine associations between demography, therapy, medication use and outcomes, considering service characteristics. Where feasible, costs associated with treatment will be reported. Where available, we will detail brain lesion size and site, and examine correlations with SLT and language outcome at 12 months. Conclusion International differences in care, resource utilisation and outcomes will highlight avenues for further aphasia research, promote knowledge sharing and optimise aphasia rehabilitation delivery. IPD meta-analyses will enhance and expand understanding, identifying cost-effective and promising approaches to optimise rehabilitation to benefit people with aphasia.

Objective People exhibiting post-stroke lateropulsion actively push their body across the midline to the more affected side and/or resist weight shift toward the less affected side. Despite its prevalence and associated negative rehabilitation outcomes, no clinical practice guidelines exist for the rehabilitation of post-stroke lateropulsion. We aimed to develop consensus-based clinical practice recommendations for managing post-stroke lateropulsion using an international expert panel. Design This Delphi panel process conformed with Guidance on Conducting and Reporting Delphi Studies recommendations. Participants Panel members had demonstrated clinical and/or scientific background in the rehabilitation of people with post-stroke lateropulsion. Main Measures The process consisted of four electronic survey rounds. Round One consisted of 13 open questions. Subsequent rounds ascertained levels of agreement with statements derived from Round One. Consensus was defined a priori as ≥75% agreement (agree or strongly agree), or ≥70% agreement after excluding ‘unsure’ responses. Results Twenty participants completed all four rounds. Consensus was achieved regarding a total of 119 recommendations for rehabilitation approaches and considerations for rehabilitation delivery, positioning, managing fear of falling and fatigue, optimal therapy dose, and discharge planning. Statements for which ‘some agreement’ (50%–74% agreement) was achieved and those for which recommendations remain to be clarified were recorded. Conclusions These recommendations build on existing evidence to guide the selection of interventions for post-stroke lateropulsion. Future research is required to elaborate specific rehabilitation strategies, consider the impact of additional cognitive and perceptual impairments, describe positioning options, and detail optimal therapy dose for people with lateropulsion.

Purpose A lack of social interaction during early stroke recovery can negatively affect neurological recovery and health-related quality of life of patients with aphasia following stroke. A Communication Enhanced Environment (CEE) model was developed to increase patient engagement in language activities early after stroke. This study aimed to examine staff (n = 20) and volunteer (n = 2) perceptions of a CEE model and factors influencing the implementation and use of the model. This study formed part of a broader study that developed and embedded a CEE model on two hospital wards. Materials and methods Six focus groups and one interview with hospital staff were conducted and analysed using a qualitative description approach. Feedback emailed by volunteers was included in the data set. Results Staff and volunteers perceived the CEE model benefitted themselves, the hospital system and patients. Staff identified a range of factors that influenced the implementation and use of the CEE model including individual staff, volunteer and patient factors, hospital features, the ease with which the CEE model could be used, and the implementation approach. Conclusions This study provides valuable insights into staff perceptions which may inform the implementation of interventions and future iterations of a CEE model.Implications for RehabilitationA CEE model may promote efficiency and increased patient engagement in stroke rehabilitation.The CEE model information session and aphasia communication partner training, and the provision of resources, may be useful strategies to increase staff confidence in using communication supporting strategies with patients with aphasia.Behaviour change and implementation science strategies may provide a framework to address barriers and promote facilitators to embed hospital-based interventions that require individual, ward, cultural and systems level change to reduce the evidence-based gap in clinical practice.

Introduction: Stroke patients with aphasia are often excluded from person-centred goal setting as part of their clinical care, despite a recommendation for person-centred goal setting in national c...

The effect of treatment dose on recovery of post-stroke aphasia is not well understood. Inconsistent conceptualisation, measurement, and reporting of the multiple dimensions of dose hinders efforts to evaluate dose-response relationships in aphasia rehabilitation research. We review the state of dose conceptualisation in aphasia rehabilitation and compare the applicability of three existing dose frameworks to aphasia rehabilitation research - the Frequency, Intensity, Time, and Type principle (FITT), the Cumulative Intervention Intensity (CII) framework, and the Multidimensional Dose Articulation Framework (MDAF). The MDAF specifies dose in greater detail than the CII framework and the FITT principle. On this basis we selected the MDAF to be applied to three diverse examples of aphasia rehabilitation research. We next critically examined applicability of the MDAF to aphasia rehabilitation research and identified the next steps needed to systematically conceptualise, measure, and report the multiple dimensions of dose, which together can progress understanding of the effect of treatment dose on outcomes for people with aphasia following stroke. Further consideration is required to enable application of this framework to aphasia interventions that focus on participation, personal, and environmental interventions and to understand how the construct of episode difficulty applies across therapeutic activities used in aphasia interventions.

Background: Aphasia is a common consequence of stroke, and people who live with this condition experience poor outcomes. Adherence to clinical practice guidelines can promote high-quality service delivery and optimize patient outcomes. However, there are currently no high-quality guidelines specific to post-stroke aphasia management. Aims: To identify and evaluate recommendations from high-quality stroke guidelines that can inform aphasia management. Summary of review: We conducted an updated systematic review in accordance with PRISMA guidelines to identify high-quality clinical guidelines published between January 2015 and October 2022. Primary searches were performed using electronic databases: PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Web of Science. Gray literature searches were conducted using Google Scholar, guideline databases, and stroke websites. Clinical practice guidelines were evaluated using the Appraisal of Guidelines and Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) tool. Recommendations were extracted from high-quality guidelines (scored > 66.7% on Domain 3: “Rigor of Development”), classified as aphasia-specific or aphasia-related, and categorized into clinical practice areas. Evidence ratings and source citations were assessed, and similar recommendations were grouped. Twenty-three stroke clinical practice guidelines were identified and 9 (39%) met our criteria for rigor of development. From these guidelines, 82 recommendations for aphasia management were extracted: 31 were aphasia-specific, 51 aphasia-related, 67 evidence-based, and 15 consensus-based. Conclusion: More than half of stroke clinical practice guidelines identified did not meet our criteria for rigorous development. We identified 9 high-quality guidelines and 82 recommendations to inform aphasia management. Most recommendations were aphasia-related; aphasia-specific recommendation gaps were identified in three clinical practice areas: “accessing community supports,” “return to work, leisure, driving,” and “interprofessional practice.”

Background: Recent reviews conclude that aphasia intervention is effective. However, replication and implementation require detailed reporting of intervention is and a specification of participant profiles. To date, reviews concentrate more on efficacy than on intervention reporting quality. \ud \ud Aims: The aim of this project is to review the descriptions of aphasia interventions and participants appearing in recent systematic reviews of aphasia intervention effectiveness. The relationship between the quality of these descriptions and the robustness of research design is explored, and the replicability of aphasia interventions is evaluated.\ud \ud Methods and Procedures: The scope of our search was an analysis of the aphasia intervention studies included in the Brady et al. 2016 and EBRSR 2018 systematic reviews, and in the RCSLT 2014 literature synthesis. Intervention descriptions published separately from the intervention study (i.e. published online, in clinical tools, or a separate trial protocols) were not included. The criteria for inclusion were that participants had aphasia, the intervention involved language and/or communication, and included the following research designs: Randomised Controlled Trial (RCT), comparison or control, crossover design, case series. Exclusion criteria included non-SLT interventions, studies involving fewer than four participants, conference abstracts, studies not available in English. Studies were evaluated for completeness of intervention description using the TIDieR Checklist. Additionally, we rated the quality of patient and intervention description, with particular reference to replicability.\ud \ud Outcomes and Results: Ninety-three studies were included. Only 14 studies (15%) had >50 participants. Fifty-six studies (60%) did not select participants with a specific aphasia profile, and a further 10 studies only described participants as non-fluent. Across the studies, an average of eight (of 12) TIDieR checklist items were given but information on where, tailoring, modification and fidelity items was rarely available. Studies that evaluated general aphasia intervention approaches tended to use RCT designs, whereas more specific intervention studies were more likely to use case series designs.\ud \ud Conclusions: Group studies were generally under-powered and there was a paucity of research looking at specific aphasia interventions for specific aphasia profiles. There was a trade-off between the robustness of the design and the level of specificity of the intervention described. While the TIDieR framework is a useful guide to information which should be included in an intervention study, it is insufficiently sensitive for assessing replicability. We consider possible solutions to the challenges of making large-scale trials more useful for determining effective aphasia intervention.

Background and Purpose: The factors associated with recovery of language domains after stroke remain uncertain. We described recovery of overall-language-ability, auditory comprehension, naming, and functional-communication across participants’ age, sex, and aphasia chronicity in a large, multilingual, international aphasia dataset. Methods: Individual participant data meta-analysis of systematically sourced aphasia datasets described overall-language ability using the Western Aphasia Battery Aphasia-Quotient; auditory comprehension by Aachen Aphasia Test (AAT) Token Test; naming by Boston Naming Test and functional-communication by AAT Spontaneous-Speech Communication subscale. Multivariable analyses regressed absolute score-changes from baseline across language domains onto covariates identified a priori in randomized controlled trials and all study types. Change-from-baseline scores were presented as estimates of means and 95% CIs. Heterogeneity was described using relative variance. Risk of bias was considered at dataset and meta-analysis level. Results: Assessments at baseline (median=43.6 weeks poststroke; interquartile range [4–165.1]) and first-follow-up (median=10 weeks from baseline; interquartile range [3–26]) were available for n=943 on overall-language ability, n=1056 on auditory comprehension, n=791 on naming and n=974 on functional-communication. Younger age ( Conclusions: Earlier intervention for poststroke aphasia was crucial to maximize language recovery across a range of language domains, although recovery continued to be observed to a lesser extent beyond 6 months poststroke.

Background To allow for accurate and timely diagnosis of developmental coordination disorder (DCD) key stakeholders must be familiar with and be able to identify features of this disorder. No studies to date have investigated the awareness of DCD among key stakeholders in Australia. Methods An online survey was complete by 494 Australian participants: primary caregivers (n = 153), teachers (n = 149), allied health professionals (n = 165) and medical professionals (n = 27). Results DCD and related terms were among the least known childhood disorders. Approximately half of the sample were familiar with the term DCD but every stakeholder group were more familiar with the term dyspraxia. Allied health professionals demonstrated greater knowledge of the features of DCD, particularly motor features. Every stakeholder group showed poor recognition of the social and psychological effects of DCD. A relatively low percentage of allied health (53%) and medical (33%) professionals reported they had identified or diagnosed DCD and less than 20% of these felt that the DSM‐5 contained adequate information to make a DCD diagnosis. Most teachers (82%) believed they should play a role in identifying early warning signs of this disorder, and 80% believed there are children in the school system who were labelled as lazy or defiant when they have motor skills impairments. Primary caregivers were supportive of a diagnosis of DCD being provided; however, only 16% were confident that a physician would provide an accurate and timely diagnosis. Conclusion Key stakeholders play a unique and important role in the identification of children with DCD. Though most participants acknowledge the role that they play, all stakeholder groups demonstrated poor familiarity with the term DCD and low levels of knowledge about the features of this disorder. Improved familiarity and knowledge of the disorder is needed for access to appropriate services and improved long‐term outcomes for this condition.

Purpose: A person with post-stroke lateropulsion pushes their body toward their hemiparetic side and/or resists accepting weight onto their nonparetic side. Research findings regarding long-term persistence of lateropulsion and its association with function are lacking. This study reports associations between lateropulsion severity (Four Point Pusher Score – 4PPS) and functional outcome (Functional Independence Measure – FIM) at three months after discharge. Methods: This prospective cohort study included 41 consecutive admissions to a stroke rehabilitation unit. Lateropulsion severity and FIM were measured at admission, discharge and three-month follow-up. Lateropulsion status at discharge, stroke laterality, ongoing physiotherapy after discharge, and demographic variables (age and sex) were tested for association with FIM change over the follow-up period. Results: Complete data were available for 38 participants. Among these, 17 (44.7%) showed lateropulsion (4PPS ≥ 1) on admission, 9 (23.7%) showed persistent lateropulsion on discharge, and 7 (18.4%) showed persistent lateropulsion at three month follow-up. Improved functional status (FIM score) was seen at follow-up in those discharged with lateropulsion who had right-sided lesions but not in those with left-sided lesions. Conclusions: Lateropulsion can continue to resolve after discharge from inpatient rehabilitation. Larger cohort studies are needed to further explore associations between persistent lateropulsion and long-term outcomes.

Continued growth in the number of published clinical studies has necessitated changes to the way evidence-based resources such as clinical guidelines are developed and updated. The Australian and New Zealand Clinical Guidelines for Stroke Management (https://informme.org.au/guidelines/clinical-guidelines-for-stroke-management) are based on continual evidence surveillance and timely updates to recommendations as new research is published. In this article, we outline the main updates to recommendations since the guidelines moved into a living mode in 2018, and discuss key challenges and benefits of living guidelines.

To describe the development and determine the diagnostic accuracy of the Brisbane Evidence-Based Language Test in detecting aphasia. Consecutive acute stroke admissions ( = 100; mean = 66.49y) participated in a single (assessor) blinded cross-sectional study. Index assessment was the ∼45 min Brisbane Evidence-Based Language Test. The Brisbane Evidence-Based Language Test is further divided into four 15-25 min Short Tests: two Foundation Tests (severe impairment), Standard (moderate) and High Level Test (mild). Independent reference standard included the Language Screening Test, Aphasia Screening Test, Comprehensive Aphasia Test and/or Measure for Cognitive-Linguistic Abilities, treating team diagnosis and aphasia referral post-ward discharge. Brisbane Evidence-Based Language Test cut-off score of ≤157 demonstrated 80.8% (LR+ =10.9) sensitivity and 92.6% (LR- =0.21) specificity. All Short Tests reported specificities of ≥92.6%. Foundation Tests I (cut-off ≤61) and II (cut-off ≤51) reported lower sensitivity (≥57.5%) given their focus on severe conditions. The Standard (cut-off ≤90) and High Level Test (cut-off ≤78) reported sensitivities of ≥72.6%. The Brisbane Evidence-Based Language Test is a sensitive assessment of aphasia. Diagnostically, the High Level Test recorded the highest psychometric capabilities of the Short Tests, equivalent to the full Brisbane Evidence-Based Language Test. The test is available for download from brisbanetest.org.Implications for rehabilitationAphasia is a debilitating condition and accurate identification of language disorders is important in healthcare.Language assessment is complex and the accuracy of assessment procedures is dependent upon a variety of factors.The Brisbane Evidence-Based Language Test is a new evidence-based language test specifically designed to adapt to varying patient need, clinical contexts and co-occurring conditions.In this cross-sectional validation study, the Brisbane Evidence-Based Language Test was found to be a sensitive measure for identifying aphasia in stroke.

To examine the inter-rater reliability, intra-rater reliability, internal consistency and practice effects associated with a new test, the Brisbane Evidence-Based Language Test. Reliability estimates were obtained in a repeated-measures design through analysis of clinician video ratings of stroke participants completing the Brisbane Evidence-Based Language Test. Inter-rater reliability was determined by comparing 15 independent clinicians' scores of 15 randomly selected videos. Intra-rater reliability was determined by comparing two clinicians' scores of 35 videos when re-scored after a two-week interval. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) analysis demonstrated almost perfect inter-rater reliability (0.995; 95% confidence interval: 0.990-0.998), intra-rater reliability (0.994; 95% confidence interval: 0.989-0.997) and internal consistency (Cronbach's α = 0.940 (95% confidence interval: 0.920-1.0)). Almost perfect correlations (0.998; 95% confidence interval: 0.995-0.999) between face-to-face and video ratings were obtained. The Brisbane Evidence-Based Language Test demonstrates almost perfect inter-rater reliability, intra-rater reliability and internal consistency. High correlation coefficients and narrow confidence intervals demonstrated minimal practice effects with scoring or influence of years of clinical experience on test scores. Almost perfect correlations between face-to-face and video scoring methods indicate these reliability estimates have direct application to everyday practice. The test is available from brisbanetest.org.Implications for RehabilitationThe Brisbane Evidence-Based Language Test is a new measure for the assessment of acquired language disorders.The Brisbane Evidence-Based Language Test demonstrated almost perfect inter-rater reliability, intra-rater reliability and internal consistency.High reliability estimates and narrow confidence intervals indicated that test ratings vary minimally when administered by clinicians of different experience levels, or different levels of familiarity with the new measure.The test is a reliable measure of language performance for use in clinical practice and research.

Aphasia research uses the length of time within rehabilitation sessions as the main measure of dosage. Few papers detail therapeutic ingredients or outline the number of times these were delivered over the treatment period. The present observational study identified therapeutic ingredients in the Very Early Rehabiltiation in SpEech (VERSE) trial and explored the dosage provided using a model of cumulative intervention intensity (CII). Therapists video recorded one therapy session per week and 53 (12%) randomly selected therapy videos were analysed. The videos were coded for number of error productions, self-corrections and type and frequency of therapist cueing. The Western Aphasia Battery Revised-Aphasia Quotient (WABR-AQ) was used for measuring patient outcome with total verbal utterances (

Background: Usual care is the term used to describe everyday practice in the management of a client within a profession. The knowledge of the tasks used in therapy and key therapeutic processes use...

Lateropulsion is a common impairment after stroke. Regardless of stroke severity, functional recovery is slower in people with lateropulsion, resulting in requirement for longer rehabilitation duration. In Australia, inpatient rehabilitation funding is determined via the Australian National Sub-Acute and Non-Acute Patient Classification (AN-SNAP). AN-SNAP class is determined using age, diagnosis, weighted Functional Independence Measure (FIM) motor score, and FIM cognitive score.To explore accuracy of the AN-SNAP to predict length of stay (LOS) for people with poststroke lateropulsion.A retrospective database audit was undertaken. AN-SNAP predicted LOS for each participant was calculated based on 2019 calendar year national benchmarks. A multivariable linear regression model estimated mean differences in reported LOS and AN-SNAP predicted LOS after adjusting for lateropulsion severity (Four Point Pusher Score). A separate logistic regression model assessed whether FIM change during admission was associated with reported LOS exceeding AN-SNAP predicted LOS.Data were available from 1126 admissions. Reported LOS exceeding AN-SNAP predicted LOS was associated with greater lateropulsion severity on admission. Where AN-SNAP predicted LOS was longer, those with no lateropulsion on admission showed shorter reported than predicted LOS. Greater improvement in FIM during rehabilitation was associated with increased odds of reported LOS exceeding AN-SNAP predicted LOS (OR 1.02, 95%CI 1.01-1.03,Inclusion of a measure of poststroke lateropulsion in the AN-SNAP classification model would result in more accurate LOS predictions to inform funding. Costs of longer rehabilitation LOS may be countered by optimized long-term physical function, reducing requirement for ongoing care.

BACKGROUND 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.\ud \ud \ud \ud AIM To describe fidelity strategies and develop core recommendations for developing, monitoring, and reporting of fidelity in aphasia intervention RCTs.\ud \ud \ud \ud SCOPE 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.\ud \ud \ud \ud CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS 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.

Post-stroke lateropulsion is prevalent. The global inconsistency in terminology used to describe the condition presents obstacles in accurately comparing research results, reaching consensus on use of measurement tools, agreeing upon a consistent approach to rehabilitation, and translating research to clinical practice. Commencing in 2021, 20 international experts undertook a Delphi Process that aimed to compile clinical practice recommendations for the rehabilitation of lateropulsion. As a part of the process, the panel agreed to aim to reach consensus regarding terminology used to describe the condition. Improved understanding of the condition could lead to improved management, which will enhance patient outcomes after stroke and increase efficiency of healthcare resource utilisation. While consensus was not reached, the panel achieved some agreement that 'lateropulsion' is the preferred term to describe the phenomenon of 'active pushing of the body across the midline toward the more affected side, and / or actively resisting weight shift toward the less affected side'. This group recommends that 'lateropulsion' is used in future research and in clinical practice.

Stroke 53(3), 956-967 (2022). doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.121.035216, Published by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, Pa.

Background Patients in hospital following stroke express a desire to continue therapy tasks outside of treatment activities. However, they commonly describe experiences of boredom and inactivity. An enriched environment aims to provide opportunities for physical, cognitive and social activity and informed the development of a Communication Enhanced Environment (CEE) model to promote patient engagement in language activities. Purpose Explore patient perceptions of a CEE model, and barriers and facilitators to engagement in the model. Methods A qualitative description study from a larger project that implemented a CEE model into acute and rehabilitation private hospital wards in Western Australia. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with seven patients, including four with aphasia, within 22 days post-stroke who had access to the CEE model. Results Patients described variable experiences accessing different elements of the CEE model which were influenced by individual patient factors, staff factors, hospital features as well as staff time pressures. Those who were able to access elements of the CEE model described positive opportunities for engagement in language activities. Conclusions While findings are encouraging, further exploration of the feasibility of a CEE model in this complex setting is indicated to inform the development of this intervention.Implications for rehabilitationPatient access to a CEE model is challenging in a hospital setting.Patients who were able to access elements of the CEE model described positive opportunities for engagement in language activities.Patients' access to the CEE model was influenced by patient factors, staff factors, hospital features as well as staff time pressures.

Objectives: Develop and implement a Communication Enhanced Environment model and explore its effect on language activities for patients early after stroke. Method and design: Before-and-after pilot study. Setting: An acute/slow stream rehabilitation and a rehabilitation ward in a private hospital in Perth, Western Australia. Participants: Fourteen patients recruited within 21 days of stroke. Seven recruited during the before-phase (control group: patients with aphasia = 3, patients without aphasia = 4) and seven recruited in the after-phase (intervention group: patients with aphasia = 4, patients without aphasia = 3). Intervention: The intervention group exposed to a Communication Enhanced Environment model had access to equipment, resources, planned social activities and trained communication partners. Both groups received usual stroke care. Data collection: Hospital site champions monitored the availability of the intervention. Behavioural mapping completed during the first minute of each 5-minute interval over 12 hours (between 7 am and 7 pm) determined patient engagement in language activities. Results: Seventy-one percent of the Communication Enhanced Environment model was available to the intervention group who engaged in higher, but not significant (95% CI), levels of language activities (600 of 816 observation time points, 73%) than the control group (551 of 835 observation time points, 66%). Unforeseen reorganisation of the acute ward occurred during the study. Conclusions: Implementation of a Communication Enhanced Environment model was feasible in this specific setting and may potentially influence patients’ engagement in language activities. The unforeseen contextual challenges that occurred during the study period demonstrate the challenging nature of the hospital environment and will be useful in future research planning.

BackgroundWhile meta-analyses confirm treatment for chronic post-stroke aphasia is effective, a lack of comparative evidence for different interventions limits prescription accuracy. We investigated whether Constraint-Induced Aphasia Therapy Plus (CIAT-plus) and/or Multimodality Aphasia Therapy (M-MAT) provided greater therapeutic benefit compared with usual community care and were differentially effective according to baseline aphasia severity.MethodsWe conducted a three-arm, multicentre, parallel group, open-label, blinded endpoint, phase III, randomised-controlled trial. We stratified eligible participants by baseline aphasia on the Western Aphasia Battery-Revised Aphasia Quotient (WAB-R-AQ). Groups of three participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to 30 hours of CIAT-Plus or M-MAT or to usual care (UC). Primary outcome was change in aphasia severity (WAB-R-AQ) from baseline to therapy completion analysed in the intention-to-treat population. Secondary outcomes included word retrieval, connected speech, functional communication, multimodal communication, quality of life and costs.ResultsWe analysed 201 participants (70 in CIAT-Plus, 70 in M-MAT and 61 in UC). Aphasia severity was not significantly different between groups at postintervention: 1.05 points (95% CI −0.78 to 2.88; p=0.36) UC group vs CIAT-Plus; 1.06 points (95% CI −0.78 to 2.89; p=0.36) UC group vs M-MAT; 0.004 points (95% CI −1.76 to 1.77; p=1.00) CIAT-Plus vs M-MAT. Word retrieval, functional communication and communication-related quality of life were significantly improved following CIAT-Plus and M-MAT. Word retrieval benefits were maintained at 12-week follow-up.ConclusionsCIAT-Plus and M-MAT were effective for word retrieval, functional communication, and quality of life, while UC was not. Future studies should explore predictive characteristics of responders and impacts of maintenance doses.Trial registration numberACTRN 2615000618550.

Coordination of international aphasia research would minimise duplication of effort, support synergistic international activities across languages and multidisciplinary perspectives, and promote high-quality conduct and reporting of aphasia research, thereby increasing the relevance, transparency, and implementation of findings. The Collaboration of Aphasia Trialists (CATs) sought to develop an aphasia research agenda to direct future research activities, based on priorities shared by people with aphasia, family members, and healthcare professionals. Our established international research network spanning 33 countries contributed to this activity. Research literature reporting the priorities of stakeholders was reviewed and synthesized (phase 1). Representatives from Working Groups on Aphasia Assessment & Outcomes, Prognosis & Predictors of Recovery, Effectiveness of Interventions, and Societal Impact & Reintegration participated in a two-day research agenda-setting meeting. The CATs expert panel refined research objectives and identified constituent components of research and methodological developments required to address these research components. The objectives and research components were grouped into overarching themes (phase 2). The resultant list was then circulated to more than 180 CATs members for review, revision, and approval. Consensus on the final aphasia research agenda and roadmap was reached by CATs executive committee (phase 3). The expert panel identified five overarching research themes: (i) evidence-based interventions for people with aphasia, (ii) effective interventions to support those communicating with people with aphasia, (iii) cross-linguistic assessment and core outcomes for aphasia research, (iv) predictors of language recovery, and (v) clinical implementation of research findings. Within these broad themes, 30 research objectives and 91 individual aphasia research components were identified and sequentially ordered. This agenda builds on research priorities identified by people with aphasia and their families, and includes priorities of healthcare professionals and researchers, and will support the rehabilitation and recovery of people with aphasia. Our internationally relevant research agenda promotes rigor in methodology, considers international applicability, synergistic activities, and sharing of resources and expertise. publishedVersion

A person with post-stroke lateropulsion actively pushes themselves toward their hemiplegic side, or resists moving onto their non-hemiplegic side. This study aimed to determine the association of lateropulsion severity with: • Change in function (Functional Independence Measure - FIM) and lateropulsion severity (Four-Point Pusher Score - 4PPS) during inpatient rehabilitation; • Inpatient rehabilitation length of stay (LOS); • Discharge destination from inpatient rehabilitation.Retrospective data for 1,087 participants (aged ≥65 years) admitted to a stroke rehabilitation unit (2005-2018) were analysed using multivariable regression models.Complete resolution of lateropulsion was seen in 69.4% of those with mild lateropulsion on admission (Post-stroke lateropulsion is associated with reduced functional improvement and likelihood of discharge home. However, given a longer rehabilitation duration, most stroke survivors with moderate to severe lateropulsion can achieve important functional improvement.Implications for RehabilitationWhile people with post-stroke lateropulsion can be difficult to treat and require more resources than those without lateropulsion, the majority of those affected, even in severe cases, can make meaningful recovery with appropriate rehabilitation.Although those with moderate to severe post-stroke lateropulsion may have poorer outcomes (longer LOS and reduced likelihood of discharge home) it is still important to advocate for access to rehabilitation for this patient group to give them the opportunity for optimal functional recovery.

Background Treatment fidelity is inconsistently reported in aphasia research, contributing to uncertainty about the effectiveness of types of aphasia therapy following stroke. We outline the processes and outcomes of treatment fidelity monitoring in a pre-specified secondary analysis of the VERSE trial. Methods VERSE was a 3-arm, single-blinded RCT with a 12-week primary endpoint comparing Usual Care (UC) to two higher intensity treatments: Usual Care-Plus (UC-Plus) and VERSE, a prescribed intervention. Primary outcome results were previously reported. This secondary analysis focused on treatment fidelity. Video-recorded treatment sessions in the higher intensity study arms were evaluated for treatment adherence and treatment differentiation. Treatment components were evaluated using a pre-determined fidelity checklist. Primary outcome: prescribed amount of therapy time (minutes); secondary outcomes: (i) adherence to therapy protocol (%) and (ii) treatment differentiation between control and high intensity groups. Results Two hundred forty-six participants were randomised to Usual Care (n=81), Usual Care-Plus (n=82), and VERSE (n=83). One hundred thirty-five (82%) participants in higher intensity intervention arms received the minimum prescribed therapy minutes. From 10,805 (UC 7787; UC-Plus 1450; VERSE 1568) service events, 431 treatment protocol deviations were noted in 114 participants. Four hundred thirty-seven videos were evaluated. The VERSE therapists achieved over 84% adherence to key protocol elements. Higher stroke and aphasia severity, older age, and being in the UC-Plus group predicted more treatment deviations. Conclusions We found high levels of treatment adherence and differentiation between the intervention arms, providing greater confidence interpreting our results. The comprehensive systems for intervention fidelity monitoring and reporting in this trial make an important contribution to aphasia research and, we argue, should set a new standard for future aphasia studies. Trial registration ACTRN 12613000776707

Rationale The comparative efficacy and cost-effectiveness of constraint-induced and multi-modality aphasia therapy in chronic stroke are unknown. Aims and hypotheses In the COMPARE trial, we aim to determine whether Multi-Modal Aphasia Treatment (M-MAT) and Constraint-Induced Aphasia Therapy Plus (CIAT-Plus) are superior to usual care (UC) for chronic post-stroke aphasia. Primary hypothesis: CIAT-Plus and M-MAT will reduce aphasia severity (Western Aphasia Battery-Revised Aphasia Quotient (WAB-R-AQ)) compared with UC: CIAT-Plus superior for moderate aphasia; M-MAT superior for mild and severe aphasia. Sample size estimates A total of 216 participants (72 per arm) will provide 90% power to detect a 5-point difference on the WAB-R-AQ between CIAT-Plus or M-MAT and UC at α = 0.05. Methods and design Prospective, randomized, parallel group, open-label, assessor blinded trial. Participants: Stroke >6 months; aphasia severity categorized using WAB-R-AQ. Computer-generated blocked and stratified randomization by aphasia severity (mild, moderate, and severe), to 3 arms: CIAT-Plus, M-MAT (both 30 h therapy over two weeks); UC (self-reported usual community care). Study outcomes WAB-R-AQ immediately post-intervention. Secondary outcomes: WAB-R-AQ at 12-week follow-up; naming scores, discourse measures, Communicative Effectiveness Index, Scenario Test, and Stroke and Aphasia Quality of Life Scale-39 g immediately and at 12 weeks post-intervention; incremental cost-effectiveness ratios compared with UC at 12 weeks. Discussion This trial will determine whether CIAT-Plus and M-MAT are superior and more cost-effective than UC in chronic aphasia. Participant subgroups with the greatest response to CIAT-Plus and M-MAT will be described.

Background While high-quality meta-analyses have confirmed the effectiveness of aphasia therapy after stroke, there is limited evidence for the comparative effectiveness of different aphasia interventions. Two commonly used interventions, Constraint-induced Aphasia Therapy Plus (CIAT Plus) and Multi-modality Aphasia Therapy (M-MAT), are hypothesised to rely on diverse underlying neural mechanisms for recovery and may be differentially responsive to aphasia severity. COMPARE is a prospective randomised open-blinded end-point trial designed to determine whether, in people with chronic post-stroke aphasia living in the community, CIAT Plus and M-MAT provide greater therapeutic benefit compared to usual care, are differentially effective according to aphasia severity, and are cost-effective. This paper details the statistical analysis plan for the COMPARE trial developed prior to data analysis. Methods Participants (n = 216) are randomised to one of three arms, CIAT Plus, M-MAT or usual care, and undertake therapy with a study trained speech pathologist in groups of three participants stratified by aphasia severity. Therapy occurs for 3 h blocks per day for 10 days across 2 weeks. The primary clinical outcome is aphasia severity as measured by the Western Aphasia Battery-Revised Aphasia Quotient (WAB-R-AQ) immediately post intervention. Secondary outcomes include WAB-R-AQ at 12-week follow-up, and functional communication, discourse efficiency, multimodal communication, and health-related quality of life immediately post intervention and at 12-week follow-up. Results Linear mixed models (LMMs) will be used to analyse differences between M-MAT and UC, and CIAT-Plus and UC on each outcome measure immediately and at 12 weeks post-intervention. The LMM for WAB-R-AQ will assess the differences in efficacy between M-MAT and CIAT-Plus. All analyses will control for baseline aphasia severity (fixed effect) and for the clustering effect of treatment groups (random effect). Discussion This trial will provide relative effectiveness data for two common interventions for people with chronic post-stroke aphasia, and highlight possible differential effects based on aphasia severity. Together with the health economic analysis data, the results will enable more informed personalised prescription for aphasia therapy after stroke. Trial registration Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN 12615000618550. Registered on 15 June 2016

Background: Contraversive lateropulsion is a common post-stroke impairment. Rehabilitation outcomes in stroke survivors exhibiting lateropulsion may differ from those without lateropulsion.Objectives: To systematically review evidence regarding associations between:1. Presence/severity of lateropulsion after stroke and functional outcome, rehabilitation length of stay, and discharge destination;2. Stroke-related factors and resolution of lateropulsion, functional outcome, rehabilitation length of stay, and discharge destination in affected stroke survivors.Methods: Medline, CINAHL, and Embase databases were searched. Journal articles published in English reporting on resolution of lateropulsion, length of stay, functional outcome, and/or discharge destination associated with post-stroke lateropulsion were included for review. Studies that did not include a comparison group (stroke survivors without lateropulsion, or sub-groups of participants with lateropulsion based on stroke-related factors), animal studies, and studies reporting only on ipsiversive lateropulsion and/or lateral medullary syndrome were excluded. Two authors independently assessed studies for inclusion. Included studies were evaluated using the Risk of Bias Assessment Tool for Nonrandomized Studies.Results: Screening identified 133 articles. Seven articles met inclusion criteria. People with contraversive lateropulsion after stroke can achieve similar improvements in function as those without lateropulsion, increasing likelihood of discharge home, but require longer rehabilitation durations to do so.Conclusions: The finding that longer rehabilitation durations are required for people with post-stroke lateropulsion to achieve their functional potential and increase likelihood of discharge home has implications for resourcing rehabilitation services. Given an additional three to four weeks in rehabilitation, people with post-stroke lateropulsion can achieve functional improvements function similar to those without lateropulsion.

Dose articulation is a universal issue of intervention development and testing. In stroke recovery, dose of a nonpharmaceutical intervention appears to influence outcome but is often poorly reported. The challenges of articulating dose in nonpharmacological stroke recovery research include: (1) the absence of specific internationally agreed dose reporting guidelines; (2) inadequate conceptualization of dose, which is multidimensional; and (3) unclear and inconsistent terminology that incorporates the multiple dose dimensions. To address these challenges, we need a well-conceptualized and consistent approach to dose articulation that can be applied across stroke recovery domains to stimulate critical thinking about dose during intervention development, as well as promote reporting of planned intervention dose versus actually delivered dose. We followed the Design Research Paradigm to develop a framework that guides how to articulate dose, conceptualizes the multidimensional nature and systemic linkages between dose dimensions, and provides reference terminology for the field. Our framework recognizes that dose is multidimensional and comprised of a duration of days that contain individual sessions and episodes that can be active (time on task) or inactive (time off task), and each individual episode can be made up of information about length, intensity, and difficulty. Clinical utility of this framework was demonstrated via hypothetical application to preclinical and clinical domains of stroke recovery. The suitability of the framework to address dose articulation challenges was confirmed with an international expert advisory group. This novel framework provides a pathway for better articulation of nonpharmacological dose that will enable transparent and accurate description, implementation, monitoring, and reporting, in stroke recovery research.

People with communication disability after stroke need interventions to optimise healthcare communication and rehabilitation outcomes. Current evidence syntheses do not adequately inform the management of communication disability during the first 90 days post-stroke. To explore the scope of literature for the management of communication disability in the first 90 days after stroke. A scoping review was conducted using a systematic keyword search of six databases. A descriptive synthesis was generated using communication-related domains related to the biopsychosocial framework of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF). A total of 129 studies met eligibility criteria. Aphasia was the most frequently addressed communication disability after stroke (76/129 studies) with a paucity of evidence investigating other acquired neurogenic communication impairments. Management predominantly focused on communication-related: body functions and structures (62 studies) (e.g., linguistic-behavioural therapies), followed by environmental factors (39 studies) (e.g., communication partner training/support); activities and participation (15 studies) (e.g., augmentative and alternative communication); and personal factors (13 studies) (e.g., assessment of depression after aphasia). A coordinated, integrated approach to developing and testing acute and subacute interventions for all communication disabilities across all communication-related domains is required.IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONInterdisciplinary stroke clinicians need to manage communication disabilities in the first 90 days after stroke to optimise healthcare communication and rehabilitation outcomes.There is some evidence to guide clinicians in aphasia management but less in other disabilities of speech and cognitive functioning.Most interventions to inform clinical practice address communication-related body functions and structures (e.g., linguistic and speech therapies). Clinicians need to address all domains and more evidence is needed to address environmental factors (e.g., communication support); activities and participation (e.g., person-centred goal setting); and personal factors (e.g., psychological care). Interdisciplinary stroke clinicians need to manage communication disabilities in the first 90 days after stroke to optimise healthcare communication and rehabilitation outcomes. There is some evidence to guide clinicians in aphasia management but less in other disabilities of speech and cognitive functioning. Most interventions to inform clinical practice address communication-related body functions and structures (e.g., linguistic and speech therapies). Clinicians need to address all domains and more evidence is needed to address environmental factors (e.g., communication support); activities and participation (e.g., person-centred goal setting); and personal factors (e.g., psychological care).

Background Effectiveness of early intensive aphasia rehabilitation after stroke is unknown. The Very Early Rehabilitation for SpEech trial (VERSE) aimed to determine whether intensive aphasia therapy, beginning within 14 days after stroke, improved communication recovery compared to usual care. Methods Prospective, randomized, single-blinded trial conducted at 17 acute-care hospitals across Australia/New Zealand from 2014 to 2018. Participants with aphasia following acute stroke were randomized to receive usual care (direct usual care aphasia therapy), or one of two higher intensity regimens (20 sessions of either non-prescribed (usual care-plus or prescribed (VERSE) direct aphasia therapy). The primary outcome was improvement of communication on the Western Aphasia Battery-Revised Aphasia Quotient (AQ) at 12 weeks after stroke. Our pre-planned intention to treat analysis combined high intensity groups for the primary outcome. Findings Among 13,654 acute stroke patients screened, 25% (3477) had aphasia, of whom 25% (866) were eligible and 246 randomized to usual care ( n = 81; 33%), usual care-plus ( n = 82; 33%) or VERSE ( n = 83; 34%). At 12 weeks after stroke, the primary outcome was assessed in 217 participants (88%); 14 had died, 9 had withdrawn, and 6 were too unwell for assessment. Communication recovery was 50.3% (95% CI 45.7–54.8) in the high intensity group ( n = 147) and 52.1% (95% CI 46.1–58.1) in the usual care group ( n = 70; difference −1.8, 95% CI −8.7–5.0). There was no difference between groups in non-fatal or fatal adverse events ( p = 0.72). Interpretation Early, intensive aphasia therapy did not improve communication recovery within 12 weeks post stroke compared to usual care.

IntroductionDespite higher incidence of brain injury among Aboriginal compared with non-Aboriginal Australians, suboptimal engagement exists between rehabilitation services and Aboriginal brain injury survivors. Aboriginal patients often feel culturally insecure in hospital and navigation of services post discharge is complex. Health professionals report feeling ill-equipped working with Aboriginal patients. This study will test the impact of a research-informed culturally secure intervention model for Aboriginal people with brain injury.Methods and analysisDesign:Stepped wedge cluster randomised control trial design; intervention sequentially introduced at four pairs of healthcare sites across Western Australia at 26-week intervals.Recruitment:Aboriginal participants aged ≥18 years within 4 weeks of an acute stroke or traumatic brain injury.Intervention:(1) Cultural security training for hospital staff and (2) local, trial-specific, Aboriginal Brain Injury Coordinators supporting participants.Primary outcome: Quality-of-life using EuroQOL-5D-3L (European Quality of Life scale, five dimensions, three severity levels) Visual Analogue Scale score at 26 weeks post injury. Recruitment of 312 participants is estimated to detect a difference of 15 points with 80% power at the 5% significance level. A linear mixed model will be used to assess the between-condition difference.Secondary outcome measures: Modified Rankin Scale, Functional Independence Measure, Modified Caregiver Strain Index, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale at 12 and 26 weeks post injury, rehabilitation occasions of service received, hospital compliance with minimum care processes by 26 weeks post injury, acceptability of Intervention Package, feasibility of Aboriginal Brain Injury Coordinator role.Evaluations: An economic evaluation will determine the potential cost-effectiveness of the intervention. Process evaluation will document fidelity to study processes and capture changing contexts including barriers to intervention implementation and acceptability/feasibility of the intervention through participant questionnaires at 12 and 26 weeks.Ethics and disseminationThe study has approvals from Aboriginal, university and health services human research ethics committees. Findings will be disseminated through stakeholder reports, participant workshops, peer-reviewed journal articles and conference papers.Trial registration numberACTRN12618000139279.

ObjectivesTo explore barriers and facilitators to patient communication in an acute and rehabilitation ward setting from the perspectives of hospital staff, volunteers and patients following stroke.DesignA qualitative descriptive study as part of a larger study which aimed to develop and test a Communication Enhanced Environment model in an acute and a rehabilitation ward.SettingA metropolitan Australian private hospital.ParticipantsFocus groups with acute and rehabilitation doctors, nurses, allied health staff and volunteers (n=51), and interviews with patients following stroke (n=7), including three with aphasia, were conducted.ResultsThe key themes related to barriers and facilitators to communication, contained subcategories related to hospital, staff and patient factors. Hospital-related barriers to communication were private rooms, mixed wards, the physical hospital environment, hospital policies, the power imbalance between staff and patients, and task-specific communication. Staff-related barriers to communication were staff perception of time pressures, underutilisation of available resources, staff individual factors such as personality, role perception and lack of knowledge and skills regarding communication strategies. The patient-related barrier to communication involved patients’ functional and medical status. Hospital-related facilitators to communication were shared rooms/co-location of patients, visitors and volunteers. Staff-related facilitators to communication were utilisation of resources, speech pathology support, staff knowledge and utilisation of communication strategies, and individual staff factors such as personality. No patient-related facilitators to communication were reported by staff, volunteers or patients.ConclusionsBarriers and facilitators to communication appeared to interconnect with potential to influence one another. This suggests communication access may vary between patients within the same setting. Practical changes may promote communication opportunities for patients in hospital early after stroke such as access to areas for patient co-location as well as areas for privacy, encouraging visitors, enhancing patient autonomy, and providing communication-trained health staff and volunteers.

Indigenous peoples throughout the world, despite being known to suffer from increased risk of stroke and traumatic brain injury (TBI), are marginalised in terms of access to rehabilitation services and have poorer health outcomes than non-indigenous peoples. Speech-language pathology services for indigenous people with aphasia have rarely been discussed in either clinical or research fora in this field, with few guidelines available for clinicians when working with indigenous clients, families, and communities. Exploiting the broad input gathered through the collective problem-solving of a focus group, the paper integrates the input of a group of practitioners and researchers at an international roundtable held in 2016 to generate a “declaration” of issues that need to be addressed regarding aphasia services for indigenous clients with aphasia. The paper aims to promote a transformative approach to service delivery that is driven by decolonizing attitudes and practices, and acknowledges historical, sociopolitical, linguistic, and family contexts as a framework for understanding indigenous clients with aphasia.