Search

Purpose: Primary progressive aphasia (PPA) is a language-led dementia associated with Alzheimer’s pathology and fronto-temporal lobar degeneration. Multiple tailored speech and language interventions have been developed for people with PPA. Speech and language therapists/speech-language pathologists (SLT/Ps) report lacking confidence in identifying the most pertinent interventions options relevant to their clients living with PPA during their illness trajectory. Materials and methods: The aim of this study was to establish a consensus amongst 15 clinical-academic SLT/Ps on best practice in selection and delivery of speech and language therapy interventions for people with PPA. An online nominal group technique (NGT) and consequent focus group session were held. NGT rankings were aggregated and focus groups video recorded, transcribed, and reflexive thematic analysis undertaken. Results: The results of the NGT identified 17 items. Two main themes and seven further subthemes were identified in the focus groups. The main themes comprised (1) philosophy of person-centredness and (2) complexity. The seven subthemes were knowing people deeply, preventing disasters, practical issues, professional development, connectedness, barriers and limitations, and peer support and mentoring towards a shared understanding. Conclusions: This study describes the philosophy of expert practice and outlines a set of best practice principles when working with people with PPA. Implications for rehabilitation Primary progressive aphasia (PPA) describes a group of language led dementias which deteriorate inexorably over time. Providing speech and language therapy for people with PPA is complex and must be person centred and bespoke. This study describes the philosophy of expert practice and outlines a set of best practice principles for speech and language therapists/pathologists working with people with people with PPA.

Purpose: Primary progressive aphasia (PPA) is a language-led dementia associated with Alzheimer’s pathology and fronto-temporal lobar degeneration. Multiple tailored speech and language interventions have been developed for people with PPA. Speech and language therapists/speech-language pathologists (SLT/Ps) report lacking confidence in identifying the most pertinent interventions options relevant to their clients living with PPA during their illness trajectory. Materials and methods: The aim of this study was to establish a consensus amongst 15 clinical-academic SLT/Ps on best practice in selection and delivery of speech and language therapy interventions for people with PPA. An online nominal group technique (NGT) and consequent focus group session were held. NGT rankings were aggregated and focus groups video recorded, transcribed, and reflexive thematic analysis undertaken. Results: The results of the NGT identified 17 items. Two main themes and seven further subthemes were identified in the focus groups. The main themes comprised (1) philosophy of person-centredness and (2) complexity. The seven subthemes were knowing people deeply, preventing disasters, practical issues, professional development, connectedness, barriers and limitations, and peer support and mentoring towards a shared understanding. Conclusions: This study describes the philosophy of expert practice and outlines a set of best practice principles when working with people with PPA.Implications for rehabilitation Primary progressive aphasia (PPA) describes a group of language led dementias which deteriorate inexorably over time. Providing speech and language therapy for people with PPA is complex and must be person centred and bespoke. This study describes the philosophy of expert practice and outlines a set of best practice principles for speech and language therapists/pathologists working with people with people with PPA.

BACKGROUND: The prevailing medical opinion is that medication is the primary (some might argue, only) effective intervention for osteoporosis. It is nevertheless recognized that osteoporosis medications are not universally effective, tolerated, or acceptable to patients. Mechanical loading, such as vibration and exercise, can also be osteogenic but the degree, relative efficacy, and combined effect is unknown. The purpose of the VIBMOR trial is to determine the efficacy of low-intensity whole-body vibration (LIV), bone-targeted, high-intensity resistance and impact training (HiRIT), or the combination of LIV and HiRIT on risk factors for hip fracture in postmenopausal women with osteopenia and osteoporosis. METHODS: Postmenopausal women with low areal bone mineral density (aBMD) at the proximal femur and/or lumbar spine, with or without a history of fragility fracture, and either on or off osteoporosis medications will be recruited. Eligible participants will be randomly allocated to one of four trial arms for 9 months: LIV, HiRIT, LIV + HiRIT, or control (low-intensity, home-based exercise). Allocation will be block-randomized, stratified by use of osteoporosis medications. Testing will be performed at three time points: baseline (T0), post-intervention (T1; 9 months), and 1 year thereafter (T2; 21 months) to examine detraining effects. The primary outcome measure will be total hip aBMD determined by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA). Secondary outcomes will include aBMD at other regions, anthropometrics, and other indices of bone strength, body composition, physical function, kyphosis, muscle strength and power, balance, falls, and intervention compliance. Exploratory outcomes include bone turnover markers, pelvic floor health, quality of life, physical activity enjoyment, adverse events, and fracture. An economic evaluation will also be conducted. DISCUSSION: No previous studies have compared the effect of LIV alone or in combination with bone-targeted HiRIT

no abstract