Telehealth practice in aphasia: A survey of UK speech and language therapists, with a focus on assessment.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Evidence suggests telehealth in speech and language therapy can enhance access to care, cost-effectiveness and satisfaction. However, little is known about use of telehealth in the United Kingdom. Moreover, many assessments/outcome measures for aphasia have been tested for face-to-face administration only, posing challenges to reliable use within the telehealth context. We explored the experiences and views of speech and language therapists (SLTs) working with people with aphasia on using telehealth to conduct assessments/outcome measures, perceived barriers and facilitators in telehealth, and their priorities for research in telehealth aphasia assessment. METHOD: We explored views of UK SLTs through an online cross-sectional survey (2021) delivered through the Qualtrics platform. The survey covered three main areas: (i) participant demographics; (ii) experience of using telehealth and doing telehealth assessments with people with aphasia post-stroke during the COVID-19 pandemic; and (iii) plans for telehealth post-pandemic. Response formats included yes/no, multiple choice, 5-point Likert scales and open-ended text responses. The survey was expected to take no more than 10 min to complete. Survey data were analysed through descriptive statistics and content analysis of open-ended questions. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-four SLTs responded to the survey. The majority (>80%) used telehealth during the COVID-19 pandemic and >90% planned to continue to use telehealth in the future. The most used platforms were Zoom, Microsoft Teams and Attend Anywhere. Access to internet and telehealth platforms, and practical problems (e.g., difficulties sharing resources online, limited functionality of telehealth platforms for assessment) were common barriers. Therapists highlighted that training, resources and materials that assist the administration of assessments were important. Most participants responded that there was a need for existing measures to be tested for administration via telehealth (n = 68, 70.8%). Participants overall felt there was a need for online interactive assessments, more online resources that have been trialled for use via telehealth, accessible formats for resources for people with aphasia and clear instructions for how people with aphasia can access resources. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides new insights into the current use of telehealth assessment with people with aphasia in the United Kingdom and directions for future research. Barriers and facilitators identified can support the implementation of telehealth assessment in SLT services. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: What is already known on the subject The use of telehealth in speech and language therapy has advantages in terms of access to care, cost-effectiveness and satisfaction with care. However, little is known about the use of telehealth in aphasia rehabilitation in the United Kingdom, especially in the area of assessment and outcome measurement. What this paper adds to existing knowledge This study identified that the majority (>80%) of aphasia therapists used telehealth during the COVID-19 pandemic and >90% planned to continue to use telehealth in the future. A need was identified for existing measures to be tested for administration via telehealth and for training, resources (e.g., online interactive assessments) and materials (e.g., accessible formats for people with aphasia). What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work? To facilitate the successful implementation of telehealth assessment, there is a need for measures validated for use via telehealth and more online resources that have been trialled for use via telehealth.

Speech, language and communication needs and mental health: the experiences of speech and language therapists and mental health professionals.

BACKGROUND: While the relationship between speech, language and communication needs (SLCN) and mental health difficulties has been recognized, speech and language therapists (SLTs), and mental health professionals face challenges in assessing and treating children with these co-occurring needs. There exists a gap in the evidence base for best practice for professionals working with children and young people (CYP) who experience difficulties in both areas. AIMS: To explore the views of SLTs and mental health clinicians about their experiences of working with CYP exhibiting co-occurring SLCN and mental health difficulties. METHODS & PROCEDURES: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with eight SLTs and six mental health professionals, including psychotherapists, clinical psychologists, play therapists and counsellors, with experience working with CYP with SLCN. Interviews were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis and themes were identified from the data. OUTCOMES & RESULTS: Participants felt that SLCN and mental health difficulties frequently co-occur. Participants described how CYP with SLCN and mental health issues commonly experience difficulties across and between the domains of language and cognition, emotional well-being and challenging behaviour. Findings suggest that there are organizational limitations in the fields of SLT and mental health that have implications for the efficacy of assessment and treatment of CYP with SLCN and mental health difficulties. Traditional talking therapies were perceived to be inaccessible and ineffective for CYP with SLCN and mental health difficulties. Interventions blending behaviour and emotion programmes with language and communication interventions were considered potentially beneficial. CONCLUSIONS & IMPLICATIONS: Future research should explore and evaluate current services and service set-up in SLT and mental health. The findings from this study have important implications for the efficacy of treatments provided to this population suggesting that more research needs to be done into effective diagnosis and interventions for this population. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: What is already known on the subject Research suggests that CYP with SLCN, such as developmental language disorder (DLD), are likely to experience mental health difficulties including depression, anxiety and poor emotional well-being. CYP who experience difficulties with SLCN and poor mental health are not well understood and this area remains under-researched. This has implications for clinician knowledge and therefore the effective diagnosis and treatment of children and adolescents experiencing SLCN and mental health difficulties. In addition, little is known about the accessibility of talking therapies to CYP presenting with SLCN and mental health difficulties. What this paper adds to existing knowledge SLCN issues are understood by SLTs and mental health issues are understood by mental health professionals, but where these co-occur difficulties exist for the diagnostic process, with professionals perceiving that CYP in this category are often undiagnosed or misdiagnosed. Organizational boundaries between SLT and mental health were perceived to contribute to a lack of understanding of SLCN and mental health needs, which has implications for effective diagnosis and treatment. Traditional talking therapies were thought to be inaccessible for CYP with SLCN and mental health difficulties. Interventions used in both SLT and psychotherapy were perceived as clinically useful if combined. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work? This paper highlights implications for the accessibility and efficacy of the assessment and treatment provided to this population and to the organization of services currently treating this group of CYP. A direction for future research would be to undertake service evaluations and intervention-based studies.

A pilot economic evaluation of a feasibility trial for SUpporting wellbeing through PEeR-Befriending (SUPERB) for post-stroke aphasia.

OBJECTIVES: To explore the feasibility of a full economic evaluation of usual care plus peer-befriending versus usual care control, and potential cost-effectiveness of peer-befriending for people with aphasia. To report initial costs, ease of instruments' completion and overall data completeness. DESIGN: Pilot economic evaluation within a feasibility randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Community, England. PARTICIPANTS: People with post-stroke aphasia and low levels of psychological distress. INTERVENTION: All participants received usual care; intervention participants received six peer-befriending visits between randomisation and four months. MAIN MEASURES: Costs were collected on the stroke-adapted Client Service Receipt Inventory (CSRI) for health, social care and personal out-of-pocket expenditure arising from care for participants and carers at 4- and 10-months post-randomisation. Health gains and costs were reported using the General Health Questionnaire-12 and the EQ-5D-5L. Mean (CI) differences for costs and health gains were reported and uncertainty represented using non-parametric bootstrapping and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. RESULTS: 56 participants were randomised. Mean age was 70.1 (SD 13.4). Most (n = 37, 66%) had mild and many (n = 14; 25%) severe aphasia. There was ≥94% completion of CSRI questions. Peer-befriending was higher in intervention arm (p < 0.01) but there were no significant differences in total costs between trial arms. Peer-befriending visits costed on average £57.24 (including training and supervision costs). The probability of peer-befriending being cost-effective ranged 39% to 66%. CONCLUSIONS: Economic data can be collected from participants with post-stroke aphasia, indicating a full economic evaluation within a definitive trial is feasible. A larger study is needed to demonstrate further cost-effectiveness of peer-befriending.

Adjustment with aphasia after stroke: study protocol for a pilot feasibility randomised controlled trial for SUpporting wellbeing through PEeR Befriending (SUPERB).

BACKGROUND: Despite the high prevalence of mood problems after stroke, evidence on effective interventions particularly for those with aphasia is limited. There is a pressing need to systematically evaluate interventions aiming to improve wellbeing for people with stroke and aphasia. This study aims to evaluate the feasibility of a peer-befriending intervention. METHODS/DESIGN: SUPERB is a single blind, parallel group feasibility trial of peer befriending for people with aphasia post-stroke and low levels of psychological distress. The trial includes a nested qualitative study and pilot economic evaluation and it compares usual care (n = 30) with usual care + peer befriending (n = 30). Feasibility outcomes include proportion screened who meet criteria, proportion who consent, rate of consent, number of missing/incomplete data on outcome measures, attrition rate at follow-up, potential value of conducting main trial using value of information analysis (economic evaluation), description of usual care, and treatment fidelity of peer befriending. Assessments and outcome measures (mood, wellbeing, communication, and social participation) for participants and significant others will be administered at baseline, with outcome measures re-administered at 4 and 10 months post-randomisation. Peer befrienders will complete outcome measures before training and after they have completed two cycles of befriending. The qualitative study will use semi-structured interviews of purposively sampled participants (n = 20) and significant others (n = 10) from both arms of the trial, and all peer befrienders to explore the acceptability of procedures and experiences of care. The pilot economic evaluation will utilise the European Quality of life measure (EQ-5D-5 L) and a stroke-adapted version of the Client Service Receipt Inventory (CSRI). DISCUSSION: This study will provide information on feasibility outcomes and an initial indication of whether peer befriending is a suitable intervention to explore further in a definitive phase III randomised controlled trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02947776, registered 28th October 2016.