Invaluable Benefits of 10 Years of the International Collaboration of Aphasia Trialists (CATs).

Aphasia research has traditionally been considered a (unidisciplinary) niche topic in medical science. The international Collaboration of Aphasia Trialists (CATs) is a global collaboration of multidisciplinary aphasia researchers. Over the past 10 years, CATs has collectively taken a rigorous approach to systematically address persistent challenges to aphasia research quality. This article summarizes the achievements over the past decade. CATs' achievements include: standardizing terminology, advancing aphasia research design by aphasia expert consensus recommendations, developing a core data set and intervention descriptors, facilitating the involvement of people with the language impairment aphasia in the research process, translating, and adapting assessment tools into global languages, encouraging data sharing, developing innovative secondary data analysis methodologies and promoting the transparency and accessibility of high quality aphasia research reports. CATs' educational and scientific achievements over the past 10 years far exceed what individual researchers in the field could have ever achieved.

Qualitative Exploration of Speech Pathologists' Experiences and Priorities for Aphasia Service Design: Initial Stage of an Experience-Based Co-Design Project to Improve Aphasia Services.

INTRODUCTION AND AIMS: Stroke survivors with aphasia (impaired language/communication) have poor outcomes and gaps in the clinical implementation of best practice contribute to this. Little is known, however, about speech pathologist perspectives on the touchpoints (key moments shaping experiences) in the clinical care pathway that have the greatest impact on service delivery nor how this varies by geographical location. We explored the experiences of speech pathologists who provide aphasia services to establish priorities for improvement and design. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is the initial experience gathering and priority identification stage of an experience-based co-design (EBCD) project. Speech pathologists were recruited from 21 geographically diverse Hospital and Health Services in Queensland, Australia. Speech pathologists working in acute, rehabilitation and community services shared positive and negative experiences of delivering aphasia care in interviews and focus groups. Experiential data were analysed using qualitative thematic analysis to determine touchpoints. Priorities for service design were identified using an adapted nominal group technique. RESULTS: Speech pathologists (n = 62) participated in 16 focus groups and nine interviews and shared 132 experiences of delivering aphasia care. Providing care in teams with poor awareness of the impacts of aphasia was identified as a key challenge, as poor patient-provider communication was perceived to increase risk of adverse outcomes for patients. Speech pathologists identified areas for improvement related to their own professional needs (e.g., greater access to clinical supervision); collaborative health care (e.g., better coordination and interdisciplinary care to increase therapy time); and the service context and environment (e.g., psychological services able to support diverse communication needs). CONCLUSIONS: Speech pathologist delivery of aphasia services could be improved through increased access to clinical supervision, opportunities for peer debriefing and interdisciplinary care. Priorities for service design varied by geographical location and included: education to support care transitions (remote areas), improved referral pathways and service linkage (regional areas) and dedicated aphasia staffing (metropolitan areas). PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: A consumer advisory committee comprising people with aphasia (n = 3, authors K.M., K.D. and B.A.), their significant others (n = 2, authors J.D. and P.M.), and a Cultural Capability Officer (author G.B.) guided this research. The team: (1) reviewed participant information; (2) co-designed surveys and workshop resources; (3) copresented research outcomes and contributed to publications. Research questions and study design (e.g., analysis methods and assessment measures) were developed by the research team (authors L.A., V.J.P., D.A.C. and S.J.W.).

'A Meaningful Difference, but Not Ultimately the Difference I Would Want': A Mixed-Methods Approach to Explore and Benchmark Clinically Meaningful Changes in Aphasia Recovery.

INTRODUCTION: Outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) are used to gauge the effects of treatment. In post-stroke aphasia rehabilitation, benchmarks for meaningful change are needed to support the interpretation of patient outcomes. This study is part of a research programme to establish minimal important change (MIC) values (the smallest change above which patients perceive themselves as importantly changed) for core OMIs. As a first step in this process, the views of people with aphasia and clinicians were explored, and consensus was sought on a threshold for clinically meaningful change. METHODS: Sequential mixed-methods design was employed. Participants included people with post-stroke aphasia and speech pathologists. People with aphasia were purposively sampled based on time post-stroke, age and gender, whereas speech pathologists were sampled according to their work setting (hospital or community). Each participant attended a focus group followed by a consensus workshop with a survey component. Within the focus groups, experiences and methods for measuring meaningful change during aphasia recovery were explored. Qualitative data were transcribed and analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. In the consensus workshop, participants voted on thresholds for meaningful change in core outcome constructs of language, communication, emotional well-being and quality of life, using a six-point rating scale (much worse, slightly worse, no change, slightly improved, much improved and completely recovered). Consensus was defined a priori as 70% agreement. Voting results were reported using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Five people with aphasia (n = 4, > 6 months after stroke; n = 5, < 65 years; n = 3, males) and eight speech pathologists (n = 4, hospital setting; n = 4, community setting) participated in one of four focus groups (duration: 92-112 min). Four themes were identified describing meaningful change as follows: (1) different for every single person; (2) small continuous improvements; (3) measured by progress towards personally relevant goals; and (4) influenced by personal factors. 'Slightly improved' was agreed as the threshold of MIC on the anchor-rating scale (75%-92%) within 6 months of stroke, whereas after 6 months there was a trend towards supporting 'much improved' (36%-66%). CONCLUSION: Our mixed-methods research with people with aphasia and speech pathologists provides novel evidence to inform the definition of MIC in aphasia rehabilitation. Future research will aim to establish MIC values for core OMIs. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: This work is the result of engagement between people with lived experience of post-stroke aphasia, including people with aphasia, family members, clinicians and researchers. Engagement across the research cycle was sought to ensure that the research tasks were acceptable and easily understood by participants and that the outcomes of the study were relevant to the aphasia community. This engagement included the co-development of a plain English summary of the results. Advisors were remunerated in accordance with Health Consumers Queensland guidelines. Interview guides for clinicians were piloted by speech pathologists working in aphasia rehabilitation.

Establishing Quality Indicators and Implementation Priorities for Post-Stroke Aphasia Services Through End-User Involvement.

BACKGROUND: Currently, there are no agreed quality standards for post-stroke aphasia services. Therefore, it is unknown if care reflects best practices or meets the expectations of people living with aphasia. We aimed to (1) shortlist, (2) operationalise and (3) prioritise best practice recommendations for post-stroke aphasia care. METHODS: Three phases of research were conducted. In Phase 1, recommendations with strong evidence and/or known to be important to people with lived experience of aphasia were identified. People with lived experience and health professionals rated the importance of each recommendation through a two-round e-Delphi exercise. Recommendations were then ranked for importance and feasibility and analysed using a graph theory-based voting system. In Phase 2, shortlisted recommendations from Phase 1 were converted into quality indicators for appraisal and voting in consensus meetings. In Phase 3, priorities for implementation were established by people with lived experience and health professionals following discussion and anonymous voting. FINDINGS: In Phase 1, 23 best practice recommendations were identified and rated by people with lived experience (n = 26) and health professionals (n = 81). Ten recommendations were shortlisted. In Phase 2, people with lived experience (n = 4) and health professionals (n = 17) reached a consensus on 11 quality indicators, relating to assessment (n = 2), information provision (n = 3), communication partner training (n = 3), goal setting (n = 1), person and family-centred care (n = 1) and provision of treatment (n = 1). In Phase 3, people with lived experience (n = 5) and health professionals (n = 7) identified three implementation priorities: assessment of aphasia, provision of aphasia-friendly information and provision of therapy. INTERPRETATION: Our 11 quality indicators and 3 implementation priorities are the first step to enabling systematic, efficient and person-centred measurement and quality improvement in post-stroke aphasia services. Quality indicators will be embedded in routine data collection systems, and strategies will be developed to address implementation priorities. PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Protocol development was informed by our previous research, which explored the perspectives of 23 people living with aphasia about best practice aphasia services. Individuals with lived experience of aphasia participated as expert panel members in our three consensus meetings. We received support from consumer advisory networks associated with the Centre for Research Excellence in Aphasia Rehabilitation and Recovery and the Queensland Aphasia Research Centre.

Towards a core outcome set for dysarthria after stroke: What should we measure?

OBJECTIVE: To identify and agree on what outcome domains should be measured in research and clinical practice when working with stroke survivors who have dysarthria. DESIGN: Delphi process, two rounds of an online survey followed by two online consensus meetings. SETTING: UK and Australia. PARTICIPANTS: Stroke survivors with experience of dysarthria, speech and language therapists/pathologists working in stroke and communication researchers. METHODS: Initial list of outcome domains generated from existing literature and with our patient and public involvement group to develop the survey. Participants completed two rounds of this survey to rate importance. Outcomes were identified as 'in', 'unclear' or 'out' from the second survey. All participants were invited to two consensus meetings to discuss these results followed by voting to identify critically important outcome domains for a future Core Outcome Set. All outcomes were voted on in the consensus meetings and included if 70% of meeting participants voted 'yes' for critically important. RESULTS: In total, 148 surveys were fully completed, and 28 participants attended the consensus meetings. A core outcome set for dysarthria after stroke should include four outcome domains: (a) intelligibility of speech, (b) ability to participate in conversations, (c) living well with dysarthria, (d) skills and knowledge of communication partners (where relevant). CONCLUSIONS: We describe the consensus of 'what' speech outcomes after stroke are valued by all stakeholders including those with lived experience. We share these findings to encourage the measurement of these domains in clinical practice and research and for future research to identify 'how' best to measure these outcomes.

Measuring successful conversations in couples with and without aphasia: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Aphasia impacts communication and relationships. While counselling is increasingly recognised as a component of the speech-language therapy role, the success of conversation partner training is typically measured in terms of communication alone. This scoping review aimed to describe how successful conversation is currently measured with couples-with and without aphasia, to inform the development of an ecologically valid measure for couples with aphasia. METHODS AND PROCEDURES: The scoping review was reported in alignment with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Extensions for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-SCR). MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsycINFO databases were searched for conversation treatment studies for couples with and without aphasia. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were extracted from included studies and screened against the three-tier model of situated language to shortlist those that measure everyday communication. Items within shortlisted PROMs were further described using the refined International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health linking rules. RESULTS: Following screening and full-text review, 46 studies were included, consisting of 24 studies conducted with couples with aphasia and 22 studies conducted with couples without aphasia. For couples with aphasia, 13 PROMs were identified that measured everyday communication. Of these, 23% were dyadic (i.e., measured from the perspectives of both members of the couple); however, they usually only appraised the communication behaviours of the person with aphasia. For couples without aphasia, eight PROMs were identified that measured everyday communication; all were dyadic and measured both attitudes and communication behaviours of both partners. CONCLUSION: Conversation relies on the interaction of two people, and success in conversation is best rated by those having the conversation. The use of PROMs is recommended as part of person and relationship-centred practice; however, there is currently no validated PROM for conversation in aphasia that considers the perspectives and behaviours of both the person with aphasia and their communication partner. The PROM items identified in this study will form the basis of future research to develop a PROM for couples' conversations in aphasia. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: What is already known on the subject Communication partner training (CPT) for couples, where one person has aphasia, can improve conversation skills and enhance relationships. Clinician-rated measures, such as conversation analysis, have been used to measure the outcomes of CPT. However, there is a lack of person-centred or self-rated outcome measurement instruments. that is, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for couples' conversations in aphasia. What this paper adds to existing knowledge We have identified outcome measurement instruments used in conversation treatment studies for couples with and without aphasia. We found that most PROMs used in aphasia treatment studies were not dyadic, that is, they did not include the self-report of both communication partners. In contrast, the PROMs used with couples without aphasia were dyadic and contained items that measured a more complex range of both partners' emotions, behaviours and attitudes. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work? This study provides insights into the content and characteristics of PROMs for couples' conversation therapy and may assist clinicians in selecting outcome measurement instruments in their practice.

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.

Establishing reporting standards for participant characteristics in post-stroke aphasia research: An international e-Delphi exercise and consensus meeting.

OBJECTIVE: To establish international, multidisciplinary expert consensus on minimum participant characteristic reporting standards in aphasia research (DESCRIBE project). METHODS: An international, three-round e-Delphi exercise and consensus meeting, involving multidisciplinary researchers, clinicians and journal editors working academically or clinically in the field of aphasia. RESULTS: Round 1 of the DESCRIBE e-Delphi exercise (n = 156) generated 113 items, 20 of which reached consensus by round 3. The final consensus meeting (n = 19 participants) established DESCRIBE's 14 participant characteristics that should be reported in aphasia studies: age; years of education; biological sex; language of treatment/testing; primary language; languages used; history of condition(s) known to impact communication/cognition; history of previous stroke; lesion hemisphere; time since onset of aphasia; conditions arising from the neurological event; and, for communication partner participants, age, biological sex and relationship to person with aphasia. Each characteristic has been defined and matched with standard response options to enable consistent reporting. CONCLUSION: Aphasia research studies should report the 14 DESCRIBE participant characteristics as a minimum. Consistent adherence to the DESCRIBE minimum reporting standard will reduce research wastage and facilitate evidence-based aphasia management by enabling replication and collation of research findings, and translation of evidence into practice.

What is 'successful rehabilitation'? A multi-stakeholder nominal group technique study to inform rehabilitation outcome measurement.

OBJECTIVE: To explore how stakeholders in rehabilitation conceptualise 'successful rehabilitation', to inform the development of a minimum dataset and core outcomes for sub-acute rehabilitation. DESIGN: Qualitative consensus study using the nominal group technique. SETTING: Online focus groups. PARTICIPANTS: Consumer representatives (n = 7), clinicians (n = 15), and health service managers (n = 9) from Australia. INTERVENTION: Participants responded to the question, 'What does successful rehabilitation look like?'. Following item generation, they prioritised their top five responses, allocating 100 points across items to denote relative importance. MAIN MEASURES: Prioritised responses were analysed across stakeholder groups using qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: Ten themes were identified. 'Successful rehabilitation' is: (1) person and family centred; (2) effective; (3) inter-professional; (4) accessible; (5) goal oriented with meaningful outcomes; (6) connected to the continuum of care; (7) evidence-based and supportive of innovation and research; (8) appropriately funded and skilled; (9) satisfying and engaging; and (10) safe. CONCLUSIONS: Stakeholder-defined 'successful rehabilitation' aligned with principles of value-based care and evidence-based rehabilitation. Provision and receipt of person and family centred care was the most important indicator of successful rehabilitation. Measures of success should include indicators of structure, process, outcome, and experience, and be conducted at multiple time-points.

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.

Prognostication in post-stroke aphasia: Perspectives of people with aphasia on receiving information about recovery.

Many people with aphasia (language impairment post-stroke) want to know their prognosis for recovery, yet current understanding of their experience of receiving prognoses is limited. Such insight is necessary to inform clinical practice in formulating and delivering aphasia prognoses, especially given the psycho-emotional distress and secondary adverse effects on recovery associated with conversations about prognosis. We sought an in-depth understanding of the perspectives of people with aphasia in relation to receiving prognoses post-stroke, with the aim of informing an evidence-based approach to aphasia prognostication in clinical practice. Semi-structured interviews, facilitated by communication support strategies, were conducted one-to-one with eight people with aphasia (ranging from mild to very severe) 3-12 months post-stroke. Reflexive thematic analysis was used to analyse the qualitative data, yielding two over-arching themes: (1) How would you know without knowing me?; (2) I need to know, but I don't want to know. Our findings illustrate issues of mistrust within the patient-clinician relationship, and complex emotions relating to hope and post-stroke adjustment. The present insight into the lived experience of receiving aphasia prognoses highlights the need for focused consideration of personal definitions of normalcy, measures for fostering trust, and the role of prognostic uncertainty.

Minimum data and core outcomes for subacute rehabilitation: A scoping review.

OBJECTIVE: In clinical practice and research, standardised sets of data and outcomes are routinely collected to facilitate data comparison, benchmarking and quality improvement. Most existing data sets are condition-specific and cannot be applied to all patients in a given clinical setting. This review aimed to determine whether the development of a minimum data set for subacute rehabilitation is feasible by collating and comparing existing rehabilitation minimum data sets and core outcome sets. DATA SOURCES: Published literature was identified through database searches (Scopus, PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL and the COMET Initiative) in September 2021. Additional data sets were identified through a grey literature search. REVIEW METHODS: This review was conducted in alignment with the PRISMA-ScR recommendations. Datasets were included if they were published in English, designed for adults, and intended for use in subacute rehabilitation. Data were extracted and taxonomically organised to identify commonalities. Items present in ≥50% of data sets were considered common. RESULTS: Twenty minimum data sets and seven core outcome sets were included. There were 29 common minimum data set domains, with 19 relating to Patient Information, seven relating to Outcomes, two relating to Service Delivery and one relating to Provider Demographics. Four common domains were identified within the Core Outcome Set analysis, which all related to Life Impact, specifically Physical Functioning (86%), Emotional Functioning/Wellbeing (57%), Social Functioning (86%) and Global Quality of Life (100%). CONCLUSION: Common item domains in conditions requiring subacute rehabilitation have been identified, suggesting that development of a dataset for subacute rehabilitation may be feasible.

Exploring the measurement of pediatric cognitive-communication disorders in traumatic brain injury research: A scoping review.

OBJECTIVE: To synthesize information about the constructs measured, measurement instruments used, and the timing of assessment of cognitive-communication disorders (CCDs) in pediatric traumatic brain injury (TBI) research. METHODS AND PROCEDURES: Scoping review conducted in alignment with Arksey and O'Malley's five-stage methodological framework and reported per the PRISMA extension for Scoping Reviews. Inclusion criteria: (a) cohort description, case-control, and treatment studies; (b) participants with TBI aged 5-18 years; (c) communication or psychosocial outcomes; and (d) English full-text journal articles. The first author reviewed all titles, abstracts, and full-text articles; 10% were independently reviewed. OUTCOMES AND RESULTS: Following screening, a total of 687 articles were included and 919 measurement instruments, measuring 2134 unique constructs, were extracted. The Child Behavior Checklist was the most used measurement instrument and 'Global Outcomes/Recovery' was the construct most frequently measured. The length of longitudinal monitoring ranged between ≤3 months and 16 years. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: We found considerable heterogeneity in the constructs measured, the measurement instruments used, and the timing of CCD assessment in pediatric TBI research. A consistent approach to measurement may support clinical decision-making and the efficient use of data beyond individual studies in systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

Prognostication in post-stroke aphasia: How do speech pathologists formulate and deliver information about recovery?

BACKGROUND: Prognostication is a complex clinical task that involves forming a prediction about recovery and communicating prognostic information to patients and families. In aphasia, recovery is difficult to predict and evidence-based guidance on prognosis delivery is lacking. Questions about aphasia prognosis commonly arise, but it is unknown how speech pathologists formulate and deliver information about expected recovery. An understanding of current practice in prognostication is needed to develop evidence-based guidelines for this process, and is necessary in order to ensure successful future implementation of recommended practice regarding prognosis delivery. AIMS: To identify the factors speech pathologists consider important when responding to questions about aphasia prognosis; to examine how they respond in different scenarios; and to evaluate their current attitudes towards aphasia prognostication. METHODS & PROCEDURES: A total of 54 speech pathologists participated in an online survey featuring hypothetical aphasia prognosis delivery scenarios, short-response questions and ratings. Open responses were analysed thematically. Multiple-choice responses were analysed using descriptive statistics and non-parametric tests. OUTCOMES & RESULTS: Speech pathologists regarded factors relating to the nature and severity of post-stroke deficits, an individual's level of motivation and the availability of social support as most important for forming an aphasia prognosis. When delivering prognostic information, considerations of the recipient's emotional well-being, hope and expectations, and comprehension of information were regarded as most important. Speech pathologists' prognosis responses varied in content and manner of communication. The content of the responses included predictions of recovery and information about various attributes and activities contributing to recovery. Prognostic information was most frequently communicated through qualitative probability expressions, general statements and uncertainty-based expressions. A need for more professional support in aphasia prognostication was indicated. CONCLUSIONS & IMPLICATIONS: There is variation in the way speech pathologists respond to questions about aphasia prognosis, and it is unknown how these conversations affect people with aphasia and their significant others. Further research to understand speech pathologists' clinical reasoning and professional support needs, and the perspectives of people living with aphasia, may help to develop an evidence-based approach to prognostication in aphasia. What this paper adds What is already known on this subject Questions about aphasia prognosis are difficult to answer. Current methods for predicting aphasia recovery are yet to demonstrate the reliability and individual specificity required for clinical application. At present, there is no evidence-based guidance or support for prognosis delivery in aphasia. What this study adds to existing knowledge There is variation in the way speech pathologists predict aphasia recovery, the prognostic information they deliver and the manner in which they communicate prognoses. Current approaches to aphasia prognostication are reliant on experience and professional judgement, and speech pathologists desire more support for undertaking this task. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work? Speech pathologists lack a consistent approach to aphasia prognostication and desire more support in this task. The present findings offer insight into clinician attitudes and practice, and provide a direction for future research to establish best-practice guidelines for this complex and demanding area of aphasia management.

Multi-Level Responses of Yellow Perch (Perca flavescens) to a Whole-Lake Nanosilver Addition Study.

Silver nanoparticles (AgNP) are widely used as antibacterial agents in both commercial products and for industrial applications. As such, AgNP has a high potential for release into freshwater environments. As part of a whole-lake ecosystem experiment to examine the impacts of AgNP exposure at low µg/L concentrations over multiple years, we evaluated biological responses in Yellow Perch (Perca flavescens) before, during, and after AgNP additions to a freshwater lake. Yellow Perch were monitored for responses to in situ AgNP additions at the cellular (suite of biomarkers), individual (growth, prey consumption, and metabolism), and population (abundance and gross prey consumption) scales. At the cellular level, several biomarkers of oxidative stress in liver tissues revealed down-regulation, including decreased mRNA levels of catalase and glutathione peroxidase in Yellow Perch collected during AgNP exposure, and elevated ratios of reduced to oxidized glutathione. At the individual level, Yellow Perch bioenergetic models revealed that prey consumption and total metabolism significantly declined during AgNP additions and remained depressed one year after AgNP addition. At the population level, Yellow Perch densities and gross prey consumption declined after AgNP was added to the lake. Together, these results reveal a holistic assessment of the negative impacts of chronic exposure to environmentally relevant AgNP concentrations (i.e., µg/L) on Yellow Perch at cellular, individual, and population levels.

Effects of Environmentally Relevant Residual Levels of Diluted Bitumen on Wild Fathead Minnows (Pimephales promelas).

Transportation of crude oil across North America's boreal ecozone creates the potential for spills in freshwater where less is known about the sensitivity of resident fish than for marine systems. The sensitivity of wild fathead minnows (FHM) to residual concentrations (ppb range) of the water accommodated fraction (WAF) of diluted bitumen (dilbit) was assessed by exposing them for 21 days followed by a 14 days depuration. Target concentrations were well below detection limits for GC-MS, but were estimated by dilution factor (1:100,000 and 1:1,000,000 WAF:water) to contain less than 0.0003 µg/L of polycyclic aromatic compounds. Confinement and handling stress caused by transfer of wild fish into tanks much smaller than their natural range resulted in mortality and lower body condition among all groups, but interactive effects of oil exposures still resulted in females with smaller cortical alveolar oocytes, and males with larger testicular lobe lumen sizes. Additional studies examining the compounded effects of stress and environmentally relevant oil exposures in wild fishes are needed.

Cell line and patient-derived xenograft models reveal elevated CDCP1 as a target in high-grade serous ovarian cancer.

BACKGROUND: Development of targeted therapies for high-grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSC) remains challenging, as contributing molecular pathways are poorly defined or expressed heterogeneously. CUB-domain containing protein 1 (CDCP1) is a cell-surface protein elevated in lung, colorectal, pancreas, renal and clear cell ovarian cancer. METHODS: CUB-domain containing protein 1 was examined by immunohistochemistry in HGSC and fallopian tube. The impact of targeting CDCP1 on cell growth and migration in vitro, and intraperitoneal xenograft growth in mice was examined. Three patient-derived xenograft (PDX) mouse models were developed and characterised for CDCP1 expression. The effect of a monoclonal anti-CDCP1 antibody on PDX growth was examined. Src activation was assessed by western blot analysis. RESULTS: Elevated CDCP1 was observed in 77% of HGSC cases. Silencing of CDCP1 reduced migration and non-adherent cell growth in vitro and tumour burden in vivo. Expression of CDCP1 in patient samples was maintained in PDX models. Antibody blockade of CDCP1 significantly reduced growth of an HGSC PDX. The CDCP1-mediated activation of Src was observed in cultured cells and mouse xenografts. CONCLUSIONS: CUB-domain containing protein 1 is over-expressed by the majority of HGSCs. In vitro and mouse model data indicate that CDCP1 has a role in HGSC and that it can be targeted to inhibit progression of this cancer.

Influence of Lipophilicity on the Toxicity of Bisphenol A and Phthalates to Aquatic Organisms.

Bisphenol A (BPA) and phthalates are among the most popular plasticizers used today and have been reported ubiquitously in surface water, ground water, and sediment. For aquatic organisms, BPA was the most toxic (96 h LC50s) to aquatic invertebrates (0.96-2.70 mg/L) and less toxic to fish (6.8-17.9 mg/L). The toxicity of BPA to amphibians differed among developmental stages, with embryos having an LC50 of 4.6-6.8 mg/L and juveniles 0.50-1.4 mg/L. The toxicity of phthalates is affected by aromatic ring substitution, alkyl chain length, and metabolism. The toxicity (96 h LC50s) of phthalates was similar to aquatic invertebrates (0.46-377 mg/L) and fish (0.48-121 mg/L). In general, the toxicity of phthalates appears to be highest around a log KOW of 6, which corresponds to the highest potential for bioconcentration and bioaccumulation. In conclusion, the lipophilicity of BPA and phthalates influence their toxicity to aquatic species.

Plasticizer endocrine disruption: Highlighting developmental and reproductive effects in mammals and non-mammalian aquatic species.

Due to their versatility, robustness, and low production costs, plastics are used in a wide variety of applications. Plasticizers are mixed with polymers to increase flexibility of plastics. However, plasticizers are not covalently bound to plastics, and thus leach from products into the environment. Several studies have reported that two common plasticizers, bisphenol A (BPA) and phthalates, induce adverse health effects in vertebrates; however few studies have addressed their toxicity to non-mammalian species. The aim of this review is to compare the effects of plasticizers in animals, with a focus on aquatic species. In summary, we identified three main chains of events that occur in animals exposed to BPA and phthalates. Firstly, plasticizers affect development by altering both the thyroid hormone and growth hormone axes. Secondly, these chemicals interfere with reproduction by decreasing cholesterol transport through the mitochondrial membrane, leading to reduced steroidogenesis. Lastly, exposure to plasticizers leads to the activation of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptors, the increase of fatty acid oxidation, and the reduction in the ability to cope with the augmented oxidative stress leading to reproductive organ malformations, reproductive defects, and decreased fertility.

Do social determinants influence post-stroke aphasia outcomes? A scoping review.

PURPOSE: To conduct a scoping review on five individual social determinants of health (SDOHs): gender, education, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and social support, in relation to post-stroke aphasia outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A comprehensive search across five databases was conducted in 2020 and updated in 2022. Twenty-five studies (3363 participants) met the inclusion criteria. Data on SDOHs and aphasia outcomes were extracted and analysed descriptively. RESULTS: Twenty studies provide information on SDOH and aphasia recovery outcomes. Five studies provide insights on SDOH and response to aphasia intervention. Research on SDOH and aphasia recovery has predominantly focussed solely on language outcomes (14 studies), with less research on the role of SDOH on activity, participation, and quality of life outcomes (6 studies). There is no evidence to support a role for gender or education on language outcomes in the first 3 months post stroke. SDOHs may influence aphasia outcomes at or beyond 12 months post onset. CONCLUSIONS: Research on SDOHs and aphasia outcomes is in its infancy. Given SDOHs are modifiable and operate over a lifetime, and aphasia is a chronic condition, there is a pressing need to understand the role of SDOHs on aphasia outcomes in the long term.

Research on the role of Social Determinants of Health (SDoH) and aphasia outcomes is in its infancy.The role of SDoHs has been mainly investigated in relation to language outcomes.Little is known about the SDoHs on activity, participation, and quality of life outcomes.Rehabilitation professionals should consider the potential influence of individual SDoHs such as gender, education, socioeconomic status, ethnicity, and social support on a person's access to aphasia services and aphasia outcomes long term.