High-Intensity Aphasia Therapy Is Cost-Effective in People With Poststroke Aphasia: Evidence From the COMPARE Trial.

BACKGROUND: Evidence from systematic reviews confirms that speech and language interventions for people with aphasia during the chronic phase after stroke (>6 months) improve word retrieval, functional communication, and communication-related quality of life. However, there is limited evidence of their cost-effectiveness. We aimed to estimate the cost per quality-adjusted life year gained from 2 speech and language therapies compared with usual care in people with aphasia during the chronic phase (median, 2.9 years) after stroke. METHODS: A 3-arm, randomized controlled trial compared constraint-induced aphasia therapy plus (CIAT-Plus) and multimodality aphasia therapy (M-MAT) with usual care in 216 people with chronic aphasia. Participants were administered a standardized questionnaire before intervention and at 12 weeks after the 2-week intervention/control period to ascertain health service utilization, employment changes, and informal caregiver burden. Unit prices from Australian sources were used to estimate costs in 2020. Quality-adjusted life years were estimated using responses to the EuroQol-5 Dimension-3 Level questionnaire. To test uncertainty around the differences in costs and outcomes between groups, bootstrapping was used with the cohorts resampled 1000 times. RESULTS: Overall 201/216 participants were included (mean age, 63 years, 29% moderate or severe aphasia, 61 usual care, 70 CIAT-Plus, 70 M-MAT). There were no statistically significant differences in mean total costs ($13 797 usual care, $17 478 CIAT-Plus, $11 113 M-MAT) and quality-adjusted life years (0.19 usual care, 0.20 CIAT-Plus, 0.20 M-MAT) between groups. In bootstrapped analysis of CIAT-Plus, 21.5% of iterations were likely to result in better outcomes and be cost saving (dominant) compared with usual care. In contrast, 72.4% of iterations were more favorable for M-MAT than usual care. CONCLUSIONS: We observed that both treatments, but especially M-MAT, may result in better outcomes at an acceptable additional cost, or potentially with cost savings. These findings are relevant in advocating for the use of these therapies for chronic aphasia after stroke.

High-Intensity Aphasia Intervention Is Minimally Fatiguing in Chronic Aphasia: An Analysis of Participant Self-Ratings From a Large Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: High-intensity therapy is recommended in current treatment guidelines for chronic poststroke aphasia. Yet, little is known about fatigue levels induced by treatment, which could interfere with rehabilitation outcomes. We analyzed fatigue experienced by people with chronic aphasia (>6 months) during high-dose interventions at 2 intensities. METHODS: A retrospective observational analysis was conducted on self-rated fatigue levels of people with chronic aphasia (N=173) collected during a previously published large randomized controlled trial of 2 treatments: constraint-induced aphasia therapy plus and multi-modality aphasia therapy. Interventions were administered at a higher intensity (30 hours over 2 weeks) or lower intensity (30 hours over 5 weeks). Participants rated their fatigue on an 11-point scale before and after each day of therapy. Data were analyzed using Bayesian ordinal multilevel models. Specifically, we considered changes in self-rated participant fatigue across a therapy day and over the intervention period. RESULTS: Data from 144 participants was analyzed. Participants were English speakers from Australia or New Zealand (mean age, 62 [range, 18-88] years) with 102 men and 42 women. Most had mild (n=115) or moderate (n=52) poststroke aphasia. Median ratings of the level of fatigue by people with aphasia were low (1 on a 0-10-point scale) at the beginning of the day. Ratings increased slightly (+1.0) each day after intervention, with marginally lower increases in the lower intensity schedule. There was no evidence of accumulating fatigue over the 2- or 5-week interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that intensive intervention was not associated with large increases in fatigue for people with chronic aphasia enrolled in the COMPARE trial (Constraint-Induced or Multimodality Personalised Aphasia Rehabilitation). Fatigue did not change across the course of the intervention. This study provides evidence that intensive treatment was minimally fatiguing for stroke survivors with chronic aphasia, suggesting that fatigue is not a barrier to high-intensity treatment.

Inclusion of People With Aphasia in Stroke Trials: A Systematic Search and Review.

BACKGROUND: Although people with aphasia (PwA) represent 30% of stroke survivors, they are frequently excluded from stroke research, or their inclusion is unclear. Such practice significantly limits the generalizability of stroke research, increases the need to duplicate research in aphasia-specific populations, and raises important ethical and human rights issues. OBJECTIVE: To detail the extent and nature of inclusion of PwA in contemporary stroke randomized controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS: We conducted a systematic search to identify completed stroke RCTs and RCT protocols published in 2019. Web of Science was searched using terms "stroke" and "randomized controlled trial". These articles were reviewed by extracting rates of PwA inclusion/exclusion, whether "aphasia" or related terms were referred to in the article or supplemental files, eligibility criteria, consent procedures, adaptations made to support the inclusion of PwA, and attrition rates of PwA. Data were summarized, and descriptive statistics applied when appropriate. RESULTS: 271 studies comprising 215 completed RCTs and 56 protocols were included. 36.2% of included studies referred to aphasia/dysphasia. Of completed RCTs, only 6.5% explicitly included PwA, 4.7% explicitly excluded PwA, and inclusion was unclear in the remaining 88.8%. Among RCT protocols, 28.6% of studies intended inclusion, 10.7% intended excluding PwA, and in 60.7%, inclusion was unclear. In 45.8% of included studies, sub-groups of PwA were excluded, either explicitly (ie, particular types/severities of aphasia, eg, global aphasia) or implicitly, by way of ambiguous eligibility criteria which could potentially relate to a sub-group of PwA. Little rationale for exclusion was provided. 71.2% of completed RCTs did not report any adaptations that could support the inclusion of PwA, and minimal information was provided about consent procedures. Where it could be determined, attrition of PwA averaged 10% (range 0%-20%). CONCLUSION: This paper details the extent of inclusion of PwA in stroke research and highlights opportunities for improvement.

The Excess Costs of Hospitalization for Acute Stroke in People With Communication Impairment: A Stroke123 Data Linkage Substudy.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the costs of hospital care for acute stroke for patients with aphasia or dysarthria. DESIGN: Observational study from the Stroke123 project. SETTING: Data from patients admitted with stroke (2009-2013) from 22 hospitals in Queensland participating in the Australian Stroke Clinical Registry (AuSCR) were linked to administrative datasets. PARTICIPANTS: Communication impairments were identified using International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision, Australian Modification codes. Overall, 1043 of 4195 (25%) patients were identified with aphasia (49% were women; median age 78 years; 83% with ischemic stroke), and 1005 (24%) with dysarthria (42% were women; median age 76 years; 85% with ischemic stroke). INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Linked patient-level, hospital clinical costing related to the stroke, were adjusted to 2013/2014 Australian dollars (AU$, US$ conversion x 0.691) using recommended national price indices and multivariable regression analysis with clustering by hospital performed. RESULTS: Compared with patients without aphasia, the median hospital costs/patient were greater for those with aphasia for medical (aphasia AU$2273 vs AU$1727, P<.001), nursing (aphasia AU$3829 vs AU$2748, P<.001) and allied health services (aphasia AU$1138 vs AU$720, P<.001). Similarly, costs were greater for patients with dysarthria compared with those without dysarthria. Adjusted median total costs were AU$2882 greater for patients with aphasia compared with patients without aphasia (95% confidence interval, AU$1880-3884), and AU$843 greater for patients with dysarthria compared with those without dysarthria (95% confidence interval, AU$-301 to 1987). CONCLUSIONS: People with communication impairment after stroke incur greater hospital costs, in particular for medical, allied health, and nursing resources.

Examining Dose Frameworks to Improve Aphasia Rehabilitation Research.

The effect of treatment dose on recovery of post-stroke aphasia is not well understood. Inconsistent conceptualization, measurement, and reporting of the multiple dimensions of dose hinders efforts to evaluate dose-response relations in aphasia rehabilitation research. We review the state of dose conceptualization in aphasia rehabilitation and compare the applicability of 3 existing dose frameworks to aphasia rehabilitation research-the Frequency, Intensity, Time, and Type (FITT) principle, 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 3 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 conceptualize, 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 after 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.

Towards efficient, ecological assessment of interaction: A scoping review of co-constructed communication.

BACKGROUND: The complexity of communication presents challenges for clinical assessment, outcome measurement and intervention for people with acquired brain injury. For the purposes of assessment or treatment, this complexity is usually managed by isolating specific linguistic functions or speech acts from the interactional context. Separating linguistic functions from their interactional context can lead to discourse being viewed as a static entity comprised of discrete features, rather than as a dynamic process of co-constructing meaning. The ecological validity of discourse assessments which rely on the deconstruction of linguistic functions is unclear. Previous studies have reported assessment tasks that preserve some of the dialogic features of communication, but as yet, these tasks have not been identified as a distinct genre of assessment. We suggest the term 'co-constructed communication' to describe tasks which are specifically designed to capture the dynamic, jointly produced nature of communication within a replicable assessment task. AIMS: To identify and summarize how co-constructed communication has been assessed with individuals with non-progressive acquired communication disability regarding task design, measures and psychometric robustness. METHODS: A scoping review methodology was used to identity relevant studies. Systematic database searches were conducted on studies published before July 2021. Studies in the yield were assessed against eligibility criteria, with 37 studies identified as eligible for inclusion. MAIN CONTRIBUTION: This is the first time that co-constructed communication has been defined as a genre of discourse assessment for stroke and traumatic brain injury populations. Co-constructed communication has been assessed for 144 individuals with aphasia and 111 with cognitive-communication disability. Five categories of co-constructed communication tasks were identified, ranging in complexity. Variability exists in how these assessment tasks are labelled and measured. Assessment measures require further psychometric profiling, specifically regarding test-retest reliability and validity. CONCLUSIONS: Co-constructed communication is a discourse genre which offers researchers and clinicians a replicable method to assess language and communication in an experimentally rigorous way, within an ecologically valid context, bridging the gap between experimental and ecological assessment approaches. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: What is already known on this subject Standardized assessments of language skills and monologue offer reliable, replicable ways to measure language. However, isolating language from an interactional context fundamentally changes the behaviour under study. This raises questions about the ecological validity of the measures we routinely use to determine diagnoses, guide treatment planning and measure the success of treatment. What this study adds to the existing knowledge This review highlights studies that conceptualize, and often quantify, interaction by combining experimental rigour and aspects of everyday dialogue. This is the first time this genre of discourse assessment has been identified. We propose the term 'co-constructed communication' to describe this genre and provide an operational definition for the term. What are the practical and clinical implications of this study? Co-constructed communication assessment tasks require refinement, particularly regarding aspects of psychometric robustness. In the future, these tasks offer pragmatic, meaningful ways to capture the effect and impact of aphasia and cognitive-communication disability within interaction.

Measuring communication as a core outcome in aphasia trials: Results of the ROMA-2 international core outcome set development meeting.

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) voted on the top two ranked OMIs: The Scenario Test (TST) and the Communication Activities of Daily Living-3 (CADL-3). TST received 72% (n = 21) of 'yes' votes and the CADL-3 received 28% (n = 8) of 'yes' votes. CONCLUSIONS & IMPLICATIONS: Consensus was achieved that TST was the preferred communication OMI for inclusion in the ROMA COS. It is currently available in the original Dutch version and has been adapted into English, German and Greek. Further consideration must be given to the best way to measure communication in people with mild aphasia. Development of a patient-reported measure for satisfaction with/impact of treatment and multilingual versions of all OMIs of the COS is still required. Implementation of the ROMA COS would improve research outcome measurement and the quality, relevance, transparency, replicability and efficiency of aphasia treatment research. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: What is already known on this subject International consensus has been reached on five core constructs to be routinely measured in aphasia treatment studies. International consensus has also been established for OMIs for the three constructs of language, quality of life and emotional well-being. Before this study, OMIs for the constructs of communication and patient-reported satisfaction/impact of treatment were not established. What this paper adds to existing knowledge We gained international consensus on an OMI for the construct of communication. TST is recommended for inclusion in the ROMA COS for routine use in aphasia treatment research. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work? The ROMA COS recommends OMIs for a minimum set of outcomes for adults with post-stroke aphasia within phases I-IV aphasia treatment research. Although not intended for clinical use, clinicians may employ the instruments of the ROMA COS, considering the quality of their measurement properties. The systematic inclusion of a measure of communication, such as TST, in clinical practice could ultimately support the implementation of research evidence and best practices.

Results of the COMPARE trial of Constraint-induced or Multimodality Aphasia Therapy compared with usual care in chronic post-stroke aphasia.

BACKGROUND: While 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. METHODS: We 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. RESULTS: We 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. CONCLUSIONS: CIAT-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 NUMBER: ACTRN 2615000618550.

Evaluating Cognitive-Linguistic Approaches to Interventions for Aphasia Within the Rehabilitation Treatment Specification System.

The Rehabilitation Treatment Specification System (RTSS) provides a framework to identify specific components of treatments developed within various rehabilitation disciplines (eg, physical, occupational, or speech-language therapy). Furthermore, this framework offers the opportunity to identify the target and active ingredients of a therapy approach as well as the mechanism of action by which it is hypothesized to effect change in abilities or functions. In this article, we apply the RTSS framework to the characterization of a sample of treatments for aphasia that are based on cognitive-linguistic models of language processing. Our discussion of these applications centers on the benefits of this classification system and additional criteria to consider when evaluating cognitive-linguistic treatments for aphasia.

Towards the Consistent Inclusion of People With Aphasia in Stroke Research Irrespective of Discipline.

People with aphasia have been systematically excluded from stroke research or included without the necessary modifications, threatening external study validity. In this paper, we propose that 1) the inclusion of people with aphasia should be considered as standard in stroke research irrespective of discipline and that 2) modifications should be made to stroke research procedures to support people with aphasia to achieve meaningful and valid inclusion. We argue that outright exclusion of this heterogenous population from stroke research based purely on a diagnosis of aphasia is rarely required and present a rationale for deliberate inclusion of people with aphasia in stroke research. The purpose of this paper is fourfold: 1) to highlight the issue and implications of excluding people with aphasia from stroke research; 2) to acknowledge the current barriers to including people with aphasia in stroke research; 3) to provide stroke researchers with methods to enable inclusion, including recommendations, resources, and guidance; and 4) to consider research needed to develop aphasia inclusive practices in stroke research.

Demystifying the Complexity of Aphasia Treatment: Application of the Rehabilitation Treatment Specification Systemx.

A considerable body of research supports the use of behavioral communication treatment as the standard of care for aphasia. In spite of robust progress in clinical aphasiology, many questions regarding optimal care remain unanswered. One of the major challenges to progress in the field is the lack of a common framework to adequately describe individual treatments, which, if available, would allow comparisons across studies as well as improved communication among researchers, clinicians, and other stakeholders. Here, we describe how aphasia treatment approaches can be systematically characterized using the Rehabilitation Treatment Specification System (RTSS). At the core of the RTSS is a tripartite structure that focuses on targets (the behavior that is expected to change as a result of treatment), ingredients (what a clinician does to affect change in the target), and mechanism(s) of action (why a given treatment works by linking the ingredients to the target). Three separate articles in the current issue specifically describe how the RTSS can be used to describe different kinds of aphasia treatment approaches: functional approaches, cognitive-linguistic approaches, and biological approaches. It is our hope that the application of the RTSS in clinical aphasiology will improve communication in published studies, grant proposals, and in the clinical care of persons with aphasia.

Comparing higher and lower weekly treatment intensity for chronic aphasia: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Optimizing intensity for aphasia treatment is a high priority research issue for people with aphasia, their families and clinicians, and could result in healthcare cost savings. An important aspect of intensity is the frequency of intervention, or how regularly treatment should be provided each week. While principles of neuroplasticity endorse massed practice, cognitive psychology has established superiority of distributed practice within normal learning. Neither concept has been conclusively tested in aphasia. There have been many literature reviews of intensity in aphasia intervention, but most have not investigated treatment intensity whilst also ensuring that therapy dose and treatment type are identical between study groups. Some have also combined studies across acute, subacute and chronic aphasia. We searched systematically for studies directly comparing higher and lower weekly treatment frequency in chronic aphasia. Eight studies were retrieved and rated for methodological quality. Meta-analysis was completed for group and single case experimental designs. Results showed that there are few studies investigating treatment frequency in chronic aphasia and their quality is low-moderate. Meta-analyses were inconclusive due to limited data, but there was no indication of either schedule being superior. Further research directly comparing treatment schedules is needed.

Treatment dose in post-stroke aphasia: A systematic scoping review.

Little is known about how the amount of treatment a person with aphasia receives impacts aphasia recovery following stroke, yet this information is vital to ensure effective treatments are delivered efficiently. Furthermore, there is no standard dose terminology in the stroke rehabilitation or aphasia literature. This scoping review aims to systematically map the evidence regarding dose in treatments for post-stroke aphasia and to explore how treatment dose is conceptualized, measured and reported in the literature. A comprehensive search was undertaken in June 2019. One hundred and twelve intervention studies were reviewed. Treatment dose (amount of treatment) has been conceptualized as both a measure of time and a count of discrete therapeutic elements. Doses ranged from one to 100 hours, while some studies reported session doses of up to 420 therapeutic inputs per session. Studies employ a wide variety of treatment schedules (i.e., session dose, session frequency, and intervention duration) and the interaction of dose parameters may impact the dose-response relationship. High dose interventions delivered over short periods may improve treatment efficiency while maintaining efficacy. Person- and treatment-level factors that mediate tolerance of high dose interventions require further investigation. Systematic exploration of dose-response relationships in post-stroke aphasia treatment is required.

Constraint and multimodal approaches to therapy for chronic aphasia: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Aphasia is a significant cause of disability and reduced quality of life. Two speech pathology treatment approaches appear efficacious: multimodal and constraint-induced aphasia therapies. In constraint-induced therapies, non-verbal actions (e.g., gesture, drawing) are believed to interfere with treatment and patients are therefore constrained to speech. In contrast, multimodal therapies employ non-verbal modalities to cue word retrieval. Given the clinical and theoretical implications, a comparison of these two divergent treatments was pursued. This systematic review investigated both approaches in chronic aphasia at the levels of impairment, participation and quality of life. After a systematic search, the level of evidence and methodological quality were rated. Meta-analysis was conducted on 14 single case experimental designs using Tau-U, while heterogeneity in the four group designs precluded meta-analysis. Results showed that high-quality research was limited; however, findings were broadly positive for both approaches with neither being judged as clearly superior. Most studies examined impairment-based outcomes without considering participation or quality of life. The application and definition of constraint varied significantly between studies. Both constraint and multimodal therapies are promising for chronic post-stroke aphasia, but there is a need for larger, more rigorously conducted studies. The interpretation of "constraint" also requires clearer reporting.

Communicative effectiveness of pantomime gesture in people with aphasia.

BACKGROUND: Human communication occurs through both verbal and visual/motoric modalities. Simultaneous conversational speech and gesture occurs across all cultures and age groups. When verbal communication is compromised, more of the communicative load can be transferred to the gesture modality. Although people with aphasia produce meaning-laden gestures, the communicative value of these has not been adequately investigated. AIMS: To investigate the communicative effectiveness of pantomime gesture produced spontaneously by individuals with aphasia during conversational discourse. METHODS & PROCEDURES: Sixty-seven undergraduate students wrote down the messages conveyed by 11 people with aphasia that produced pantomime while engaged in conversational discourse. Students were presented with a speech-only, a gesture-only and a combined speech and gesture condition and guessed messages in both a free description and a multiple-choice task. OUTCOMES & RESULTS: As hypothesized, listener comprehension was more accurate in the combined pantomime gesture and speech condition as compared with the gesture- or speech-only conditions. Participants achieved greater accuracy in the multiple-choice task as compared with the free-description task, but only in the gesture-only condition. The communicative effectiveness of the pantomime gestures increased as the fluency of the participants with aphasia decreased. CONCLUSIONS & IMPLICATIONS: These results indicate that when pantomime gesture was presented with aphasic speech, the combination had strong communicative effectiveness. Future studies could investigate how pantomimes can be integrated into interventions for people with aphasia, particularly emphasizing elicitation of pantomimes in as natural a context as possible and highlighting the opportunity for efficient message repair.

From concept to practice: a scoping review of the application of AI to aphasia diagnosis and management.

PURPOSE: Aphasia is an acquired communication disability resulting from impairments in language processing following brain injury, most commonly stroke. People with aphasia experience difficulties in all modalities of language that impact their quality of life. Therefore, researchers have investigated the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) to deliver innovative solutions in Aphasia management and rehabilitation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a scoping review of the use of AI in aphasia research and rehabilitation to explore the evolution of AI applications to aphasia, the progression of technologies and applications. Furthermore, we aimed to identify gaps in the use of AI in Aphasia to highlight the potential areas where AI might add value. We analysed 77 studies to determine the research objectives, the history of AI techniques in Aphasia and their progression over time. RESULTS: Most of the studies focus on automated assessment using AI, with recent studies focusing on AI for therapy and personalised assistive systems. Starting from prototypes and simulations, the use of AI has progressed to include supervised machine learning, unsupervised machine learning, natural language processing, fuzzy rules, and genetic programming. CONCLUSION: Considerable scope remains to align AI technology with aphasia rehabilitation to empower patient-centred, customised rehabilitation and enhanced self-management.

Aphasia is an acquired communication disorder that impacts everyday functioning due to impairments in speech, auditory comprehension, reading, and writing.Given this communication burden, researchers have focused on utilising artificial intelligence (AI) methods for assessment, therapy and self-management.From a conceptualisation era in the early 1940s, the application of AI has evolved with significant developments in AI applications at different points in time.Despite these developments, there are ample opportunities to exploit the use of AI to deliver more advanced applications in self-management and personalising care.

Adapting a group-based, multimodal aphasia treatment for telehealth - co-design of M-MAT Tele.

Multi-Modality Aphasia Treatment (M-MAT) is an effective group intervention for post-stroke aphasia. M-MAT employs interactive card games and the modalities of gesture, drawing, reading, and writing to improve spoken language. However, there are challenges to implementation of group interventions such as M-MAT, particularly for those who cannot travel or live in rural areas. To maximise access to this effective treatment, we aimed to adapt M-MAT to telehealth format (M-MAT Tele). The Human-Centred Design Framework was utilized to guide the adaptation approach. We identified the intended context of use (outpatient/community rehabilitation) and the stakeholders (clinicians, people with aphasia, health service funders). People with aphasia and practising speech pathologists were invited to co-design M-MAT Tele in a series of iterative workshops, to ensure the end product was user-friendly and clinically feasible. The use of co-design allowed us to understand the hardware, software and other constraints and preferences of end users. In particular, clinicians (n = 3) required software compatible with a range of telehealth platforms and people with aphasia (n = 3) valued solutions with minimal technical demands and costs for participants. Co-design within the Human-Centred Design Framework led to a telehealth solution compatible with all major telehealth platforms, with minimal hardware or software requirements. Pilot testing is underway to confirm acceptability of M-MAT Tele to clinicians and people with aphasia, aiming to provide an effective, accessible tool for aphasia therapy in telehealth settings.

Developing consensus-based clinical competencies to guide stroke clinicians in the implementation of psychological care in aphasia rehabilitation.

Background People with aphasia experience depression and anxiety associated with negative outcomes across a range of time post-stroke. Stroke clinicians are well-positioned to facilitate low-intensity psychotherapeutic interventions after aphasia (e.g. mood screening, behavioural activation, problem-solving therapy, relaxation therapy); however, they self-report a lack of knowledge, skills and confidence to do so. The Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) provides a lens through which to view and target clinician behaviours and training needs in this area of practice. The aim of this study was to develop and gain consensus on items for a rating scale of clinical competencies in facilitating individual-based, low-intensity psychotherapeutic interventions for people with aphasia. Methods An e-Delphi methodology using focus groups and survey rounds was used to gain consensus on clinical competencies considered important. Results Eight stroke clinicians (speech pathologists and psychologists), two people with aphasia and three family members participated in one of four focus groups. Four themes were derived from the data: (1) Communication support, (2) Assessment and therapy structure, (3) Interpersonal skills, and (4) Needs of the significant other (family or friend). Themes informed an initial list of 23 self-rated and observer-rated competency items. Following two rounds of e-Delphi surveys, 11 stroke clinicians (six speech pathologists and five psychologists) reached consensus (80-100%) for 19 competencies. Conclusions The Psychological Care in Aphasia Rehabilitation Competency scale offers a preliminary list of items to guide and train clinicians to implement low-intensity psychotherapeutic interventions for people with aphasia.

Aphasia disrupts usual care: "I'm not mad, I'm not deaf" - the experiences of individuals with aphasia and family members in hospital.

PURPOSE: Communication difficulties are highly prevalent in the stroke population, with implications for patient experience, safety and outcomes. This study explores the experiences of people with aphasia and family members regarding healthcare communication in acute and subacute stroke settings. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A phenomenological approach was used to understand participants' experiences. Participants took part in a focus group and data were analysed using an inductive thematic approach. RESULTS: For individuals with aphasia (n = 4) and family members (n = 2), five themes were generated: "aphasia makes it hard to communicate," "hospital staff focus on the patient's medical status only," "people with aphasia do not get the help they need to improve," "staff lack the skills to communicate with people with aphasia," and "staff are crucial to improving healthcare communication." CONCLUSIONS: The stroke team has expertise in the medical management of stroke but struggle to communicate with patients with aphasia. Patients' experience of healthcare communication is often one-way and limited to following instructions, with missed opportunities to discuss core topics such as prognosis, rehabilitation, and person-specific needs. Patients and families assert that all members of the stroke healthcare team should be able to adapt communication to accommodate patients.

Person-centred care is not a reality for many patients with aphasia.Many healthcare conversations, including informal assessments and discussing prognosis, are not accessible for people with aphasia.Consequently, for people with aphasia, healthcare in hospital is characterised by confusion and exclusion.Staff are crucial to improving healthcare communication; when appropriate strategies were used, these were not only effective but very meaningful to patients.

Comparing acute hospital outcomes for people with post-stroke aphasia who do and do not require an interpreter.

BACKGROUND: People with communication differences are known to have poorer hospital outcomes than their peers. However, the combined impact of aphasia and cultural/linguistic differences on care and outcomes after stroke remains unknown. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the association between cultural/linguistic differences, defined as those requiring an interpreter, and the provision of acute evidence-based stroke care and in-hospital outcomes for people with aphasia. METHODS: Cross-sectional, observational data collected in the Stroke Foundation National Audit of Acute Services (2017, 2019, 2021) were used. Multivariable regression models compared evidence-based care and in-hospital outcomes (e.g., length of stay) by interpreter status. Models were adjusted for sex, hospital location, stroke type and severity, with clustering by hospital. RESULTS: Among 3122 people with aphasia (median age 78, 49% female) from 126 hospitals, 193 (6%) required an interpreter (median age 78, 55% female). Compared to people with aphasia not requiring an interpreter, those requiring an interpreter had similar care access but less often had their mood assessed (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.32, 0.76), were more likely to have physiotherapy assessments (96% vs 90% p = 0.011) and carer training (OR 4.83, 95% CI 1.70, 13.70), had a 2 day longer median length of stay (8 days vs 6 days, p = 0.003), and were less likely to be independent on discharge (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.33, 0.89). CONCLUSIONS: Some differences exist in the management and outcomes for people with post-stroke aphasia who require an interpreter. Further research to explore their needs and the practical issues underpinning their clinical care pathways is required.