How do speech and language therapists enact aphasia psychosocial support in Ireland? A cross-sectional online survey informed by normalization process theory.

BACKGROUND: Supporting psychosocial well-being in aphasia is necessarily person-centred, interdisciplinary and coordinated. Shortcomings in such support are described in Ireland and elsewhere. Speech and language therapists (SLTs) are integral; and describing current practice and barriers they experience is important for enhancing service delivery. AIMS: To understand how SLTs enact, and are supported to enact, aphasia psychosocial care in Ireland. METHODS & PROCEDURES: This is a cross-sectional, online, self-administered clinician survey targeting SLTs working minimally 1 year post-qualification with persons with aphasia of any aetiology in Ireland. The survey questions were charted against key constructs of the implementation science framework, normalization process theory (NPT), and descriptive statistics were applied. OUTCOMES & RESULTS: A total of 54 eligible datasets were included. SLTs believed psychosocial support to be part of their role, but perceived multiple barriers in enacting it. These included a lack of training, clinical supervision, management support, role recognition, and access to and joint working with mental health professionals and services. CONCLUSIONS & IMPLICATIONS: SLTs in Ireland face a range of individual and structural barriers, including care coordination and resourcing. There is a clear need not only for training, upskilling and mentorship, but also for wider changes around access to mental health professionals and clarity around the processes of referral, coordination and integration of aphasia care across settings. These findings comprise preliminary insights into current practices. Further research is needed as well as clarity on best-practice pathways for different aetiologies of aphasia. Articulating current practices using NPT may have utility for developing empirically informed and principled interventions to improve service delivery. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: What is already known on this subject People with aphasia of all aetiologies are at risk of psychosocial problems. Shortcomings in access and the availability of appropriate support have been documented both internationally and in Ireland. To address this issue, an important first step is to understand how SLTs in Ireland currently enact and are supported to enact aphasia psychosocial care. What this study adds to the existing knowledge The findings describe the potential levers and barriers to progressing aphasia psychosocial care in Ireland. A range of individual, team and structural factors were identified. These were locally contextualized but similar issues are reported in other countries. Linking attitudes with NPT constructs provides a first step for further principled implementation projects. What are the practical and clinical implications of this study? Addressing psychosocial problems is perceived as a legitimate part of the speech and language therapy role. SLTs in Ireland enact a range of therapeutic approaches but may need opportunities for formal training and supervision, and for better coordination and integration with other mental health services and disciplines. Understanding differences in care pathways across the range of aphasia aetiologies is additionally important given the emphasis on post-stroke aphasia in the literature.

Are People with Aphasia Included in Stroke Trials? A Systematic Review and Narrative Synthesis.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the proportion of people with aphasia (PwA) included and retained in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of stroke interventions published in the previous 6 years, as well as aphasia-relevant eligibility criteria and inclusion/retention strategies. DATA SOURCES: Comprehensive searching of Embase, PubMed and Medline (Ovid) for the period January 2016 - November 2022. REVIEW METHODS: RCTs examining stroke interventions targeting cognition, psychological wellbeing/health-related quality of life (HRQL), multidisciplinary rehabilitation, and self-management were included. Methodological quality was assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) Randomised Controlled Trial checklist. Descriptive statistics were applied to extracted data, and results were reported narratively. RESULTS: Fifty-seven RCTs were included. These examined self-management (32%), physical (26%) psychological wellbeing/HRQL (18%), cognitive (14%), and multidisciplinary (11%) interventions. Of 7313 participants, 107 (1.5%) had aphasia and were included in three trials. About one-third did not report on aphasia (32%); over one quarter required functional communication (28%); one quarter excluded all aphasia (25%); and 14% excluded severe aphasia. No aphasia-specific inclusion/retention strategies were available. CONCLUSION: The findings highlight ongoing under-representation. However, due to shortcomings in aphasia reporting, the findings may underestimate actual inclusion rate. Excluding PwA has implications for the external validity, effectiveness, and implementation of stroke research findings. Triallists may require support in aphasia research strategies and methodological reporting.