Search

Stroke survivors and informal caregivers experience high levels of stress and anxiety, linked to heightened risk of secondary stroke in survivors. Relaxation and mindfulness could reduce stress and anxiety; being most effective when tailored to the target populations. Aims of the PPI include to: (1) consult on possible alterations to an existing relaxation and mindfulness intervention, delivered via YouTube/DVD and (2) discuss relevance and preference of prompts and cues designed to facilitate the daily practice of the intervention. Eleven UK PPI contributors were consulted during 2020: four stroke survivors (F = 2, M = 2), three caregivers (F = 1, M = 2), and four HCPs (F = 4) (range = 23–63 years). Contributors watched the existing intervention and provided feedback via online discussions. Transcripts were analysed using thematic analysis. Five themes were identified, highlighting several necessary alterations to the intervention: “Who represents the stroke population?”; “The paradox of age”; “Specifically selected language”; “Visual presentation of the intervention”; and the “Audio qualities”. Contributors ranked the prompts and cues in order of preference with setting alarms and email alerts as the most popular. The PPI consultations resulted in several alterations enabling a revised version of the intervention. Including a PPI consultation at an early stage of the research improves the relevance and appropriateness of the research. The revised intervention is more representative of the stroke population thus more likely to be practised by survivors and caregivers, which will enhance the extent of effectiveness, reducing the risk of a secondary stroke.

As speech and language therapists, we explored theories of communication and voice that are familiar to our profession and found them an inadequate basis on which to generate deep and rich analysis of the qualitative data from people who have communication difficulties and who use augmentative and alternative communication. Expanding our conceptual toolkit to include the work of John Shotter allowed us to reconceptualise voice and where it is emergent in dialogue. Reimaging voice will inform clinical and research praxis with people who have communication difficulties as it allows practitioners to attend more closely to the complexity and nuance inherent in interactions with this population. Our proposition is exemplified with excerpts from a single participant who has communication difficulties to illustrate the value of dialogic theory in praxis. This article presents a provocation for the wider academy of qualitative health research; do we have the concepts and tools to develop meaning with people whose lived experiences may also be hard to voice in monologues?

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 ≥ 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

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 examin

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 ex

PURPOSE: This paper presents a review of the existing qualitative research literature concerning people's experience of communicating using augmentative and alternative communication (AAC). The aims of conducting this review were to find out more about the values and outcomes that are important to people about the AAC they use to support their communication. This review was conducted to provide a deeper understanding of these experiences to inform the development of a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A qualitative evidence synthesis of existing qualitative research literature was undertaken to explore and appraise current knowledge about the experiences of people who use AAC. RESULTS: From 115 qualitative research reports 19 papers were identified that responded directly to the research question and aims of the review. Data were identified that could be organized within an a priori framework consisting of the constructs of values, outcomes, and context. CONCLUSION: The review has resulted in a deeper, analytical understanding of the experiences of people who require AAC. The results indicate a set of concepts that can be used to inform the development of a PROM. A PROM can be used to assist clinicians and researchers to better understand the perspectives of people who require AAC and evaluate interventions. The results also encourage professionals to reconsider the terminology and methods used when working alongside people who require AAC and to reflect on the multidimensional factors that influence people's experience of communication.IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONPatient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) can be useful tools to support clinician-patient communication, facilitate shared decision making and establish priorities for rehabilitation.It can be difficult to engage people who have complex communication difficulties in decisions about the important outcomes to them from using augmentative and alternative communication (AAC).T

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 ≥ 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) vo

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(s): 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 exa

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 examin

Background: Power assisted exercise is accessible and acceptable for people with stroke. The potential for technological advancement of the equipment to improve the user experience has been identified. Involvement of end users and service providers in the design of health technologies is essential in determining how said technology is perceived and adopted. This project invited people with stroke and service providers to influence design features and determine machine selection in the preliminary stages of a codesign research programme. Aims: To capture the perspectives of people with stroke and professionals working with people with stroke about proposed digitalisation of power assisted exercise equipment and select machines for prototype development. Methods: Nominal group technique was used to capture the perspectives, ideas, preferences and priorities of three stakeholder groups: people with stroke (n = 3, mean age 66 years), rehabilitation professionals (n = 3) and exercise scientists (n = 3). Two questions underpinned the structure of the events; ‘What does an assistive exercise machine need to do to allow the person with stroke to engage in exercise?’ and ‘Which machines would you prioritise for use with People with Stroke?’ Attendees were invited to cast votes to indicate their preferred machines. Findings: Synthesis of the data from the NGT identified four domains; software and interface, exercise programme, machine and accessories, setting and service. Three preferred machines from a range of nine were identified through vote counting. Conclusion: Nominal group technique directed the selection of machines to be included in the development of the proposed technology. The vision shared by users during the structured discussion shaped the subsequent steps in the design and testing of the new technology. Patient and service provider contribution: The opinions and preferences of people with stroke, rehabilitation professionals and exercise scientists were centr

Purpose: Seated Power Assisted Exercise (PAE) equipment is an accessible exercise mode for people with limited mobility following stroke and is available at a small number of community-based venues. The purpose of this qualitative study was to understand the lived experience of using PAE amongst PwS in a community venue and identify recommendations for the development and advancement of PAE equipment. Method: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 8 participants (PwS) attending a community stroke venue where PAE equipment was available. Transcribed data were analysed using interpretative phenomenological analysis. Results: Three overarching themes emerged from the analysis; 1) Don’t tell me I’ve plateaued; 2) PAE facilitates the transition into long-term recovery; 3) Reframing the experience of stroke. Participants associated the uptake of PAE alongside venue membership as a turning point in their adjustment to life following stroke. In addition, recommendations for future development of the equipment were identified. Conclusion: These findings indicate that membership of a stroke venue alongside engagement with PAE facilitated transition from early stroke rehabilitation into longer term recovery. The results of this study have informed the need for future product design and highlighted PAE is an effective mode for continued rehabilitation in third-sector services.

Background The role of public involvement (PI) in healthcare research is growing in importance and it is imperative that researchers continuously reflect on how to promote the inclusion of patients and service users in the design and delivery of research. PI offers a mechanism for end-users to be involved planning, executing, and reporting research. Some patient groups, including people who have communication difficulties, may struggle to engage in the methods traditionally employed to promote PI engagement such as questionnaires and focus groups. Methods This article describes a longitudinal case-study of a PI group, consisting of people who have communication difficulties, for a patient-reported outcome development project. Creative methods, informed by the participatory design principles of enacting, seeing and doing, were introduced stepwise into seven PI meetings. Data from video and visual minutes were used to evaluate the impact of the methods, following each group. Feedback, in the form of verbal and visual outputs taken directly from group meeting minutes, along with vignettes evidenced the impact of the methods on the project and group members. Results Creative methods enabled the PI group members to successfully contribute in meetings, to interact dynamically and to engage with the aims and processes of the research project. Their involvement facilitated the development of accessible recruitment materials, informed data analysis and supported the dissemination of project outputs. Employing creative methods also enabled both PI group members and the academic team to reflect on their own roles within the research project and the impact that their active involvement in the PI group has had on their personal development and perspectives on research. Conclusion The impact of using creative methods in PI for this patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) development project improved collaboration and understanding between PI members and the academic team. The aut

Geospace Environment Modeling (GEM) is a community-driven, National Science Foundation-sponsored research program investigating the physics of the Earth's magnetosphere and its coupling to the solar wind and the atmosphere. This commentary provides an introduction to a Special Issue collating recent studies related to a GEM Challenge on kinetic plasma processes in the dayside magnetosphere during southward interplanetary magnetic field conditions. We also recount our experiences of organizing such a collaborative activity, where modelers and observers compare their results, that is, of the human side of bringing researchers together. We give suggestions on planning, managing, funding, and documenting these activities, which provide valuable opportunities to advance the field. Plain Language Summary Geospace Environment Modeling (GEM) is a community-driven, National Science Foundation-sponsored research program investigating the physics of the Earth's magnetosphere and its coupling to the solar wind and the atmosphere. An integral part of the program is the so-called "Challenges", which bring people together to compare models and observations in order to advance our understanding of the near-Earth space environment. This commentary provides an introduction to a Special Issue collating recent studies related to one such collaborative effort. We also share our experiences as early-career scientists organizing such an activity, to aid those who might take part in such endeavors in the future. We give suggestions on planning, managing, funding, and documenting the activities.