"I Could Not Talk . . . She Did Everything . . . She's Now My Sister": People With Aphasia's Perspectives on Friends Who Stuck Around.

PURPOSE: Aphasia may decrease the capacity to develop and maintain friendships. The aim of this study was to better understand the perspectives of people with aphasia on why some friendship bonds remain strong and some do not. Furthermore, we wanted to explore how age and aphasia severity shape views on friendship. METHOD: We interviewed 27 people with aphasia about their experiences of friendship before and after the onset of aphasia. We then used framework analysis and reflexive thematic analysis to interpret the interview data. RESULTS: From the interviews, we created four major themes concerning how friend relationships had been impacted by aphasia: (a) Not all bonds have the same chance of surviving the onset of aphasia; (b) people with aphasia's closest friends took active steps to keep relationships strong; (c) if friends knew some basic information about aphasia, bonds would stay stronger; (d) positive affective aspects of friendship play an important role in keeping bonds strong. We also noted differences in friendship experiences that appeared to be influenced by age and aphasia severity of participants. CONCLUSIONS: Interview data provided actionable ideas including focusing on friends who are likely to be responsive to help with maintaining the friendship, providing them with strategies to keep the friendship active and communication meaningful, and acknowledging the positive impact that this will have on the friend recovering from aphasia. More research is needed to develop programs that empower people with aphasia to maintain their friendships. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.24688671.

Improving communicative access and patient experience in acute stroke care: An implementation journey.

INTRODUCTION: Patient experience for people with aphasia/families in acute care is frequently reported as negative, with communication barriers contributing to adverse events and significant long-term physical and psychosocial sequelae. Although the effectiveness of providing supported communication training and resources for health care providers in the stroke system is well documented, there is less evidence of implementation strategies for sustainable system change. This paper describes an implementation process targeting two specific areas: 1) improving Stroke Team communication with patients with aphasia, and 2) helping the Stroke Team provide support to families. The project aimed for practical sustainable solutions with potential contribution toward the development of an implementation practice model adaptable for other acute stroke contexts. METHODS: The project was designed to create a communicatively accessible acute care hospital unit for people with aphasia. The process involved a collaboration between a Stroke Team covering two units/wards led by nurse managers (19 participants), and a community-based Aphasia Team with expertise in Supported Conversation for Adults with Aphasia (SCA™) - an evidence-based method to reduce language barriers and increase communicative access for people with aphasia. Development was loosely guided by the integrated knowledge translation (iKT) model, and information regarding the implementation process was gathered in developmental fashion over several years. OUTCOMES: Examples of outcomes related to the two target areas include provision of accessible information about aphasia to patients as well as development of two new products - a short virtual SCA™ eLearning module relevant to acute care, and a pamphlet for families on how to keep conversation alive. Potential strategies for sustaining a focus on aphasia and communicative access emerged as part of the implementation process. CONCLUSIONS: This implementation journey allowed for a deeper understanding of the competing demands of the acute care context and highlighted the need for further work on sustainability of communicative access interventions for stroke patients with aphasia and their families.

Preventing depression in aphasia: A cluster randomized control trial of the Aphasia Action Success Knowledge (ASK) program.

BACKGROUND: Stroke patients with aphasia and their caregivers have higher incidence of depression than those without aphasia. AIMS: The objective of the study is to determine whether a tailored intervention program (Action Success Knowledge; ASK) led to better mood and quality of life (QoL) outcomes than an attention control with a 12-month end point at cluster and individual participant level. METHODS: A multi-site, pragmatic, two-level single-blind cluster randomized controlled trial compared ASK to an attention control (secondary stroke prevention program). Ten metropolitan and 10 non-metropolitan health regions were randomized. People with aphasia and their family members were recruited within 6 months post-stroke who scored ⩽12 on the Stroke Aphasic Depression Questionnaire Hospital Version-10 at screening. Each arm received manualized intervention over 6-8 weeks followed by monthly telephone calls. Blinded assessments of QoL and depression were taken at 12 months post-onset. RESULTS: Twenty clusters (health regions) were randomized. Trained speech pathologists screened 1744 people with aphasia and 373 participants consented to intervention (n = 231 people with aphasia and 142 family members). The attrition rate after consent was 26% with 86 and 85 participants with aphasia in the ASK arm and attention control arm, respectively, receiving intervention. Of those 171 who did receive treatment, only 41 met the prescribed minimum dose. Multilevel mixed effects modeling under the intention-to-treat protocol showed a significant difference on the Stroke and Aphasia Depression Questionnaire-21 (SADQ-21, N = 122, 17 clusters) in favor of the attention control (ß = -2.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) = -4.76 to -0.73, p = 0.008). Individual data analysis using a minimal detectable change score for the SADQ-21 showed the difference was not meaningful. CONCLUSION: ASK showed no benefit over attention control in improving mood and preventing depression in people with aphasia or their family members.

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.

A scoping review of friendship intervention for older adults: lessons for designing intervention for people with aphasia.

PURPOSE: Map the landscape of friendship interventions/programs for older adults to guide intervention/program development inclusive of the unique needs of older people with aphasia (PWA). METHODS: A search query of multiple databases was completed for articles published before 4 January 2021. Studies included all the following: (1) participants aged 55 years or older; (2) addressed an intervention/program designed to prevent social isolation and/or friendship loss; (3) used an outcome variable related to social isolation and/or friendship; and (4) published in a peer-reviewed journal. Title and abstract screening were conducted using Covidence software, which tracked disagreements across the study team. All studies included in the full-text review were identified as relevant by a minimum of two study authors, and a consensus was reached on all full-text reviews. Data were extracted according to (1) theoretical frameworks used; (2) interventionist and discipline; (3) participant characteristics; (4) intervention/program replicability; (5) format of intervention/program; (6) measures used in the intervention/programs; (7) and, reported effects of intervention/programs on individuals. RESULTS: A total of 40 articles with 42 intervention/programs were included and represented 4584 intervention/program participants ranging in age from 40 to 104 years. Intervention/programs involved a wide range of theoretical frameworks (e.g., theories of loneliness, feminist theory, positive psychology). Disciplines such as psychology and exercise science informed intervention/programs. Interventionists included many types of individuals like therapists, volunteers and home health aides. Intervention/programs often lacked adequate description for replication and included individual and group formats, most commonly delievered in the participants homes. Outcomes usually included self-report measures of loneliness, social networks, or well-being, and intervention/programming was primarily educational, activity-based, or networking-based in nature. CONCLUSIONS: The intervention/programs reviewed yield important lessons to support innovation in developing friendship intervention/programs for older PWA as most yielded positive results and were acceptable to participants.IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONPeople with aphasia want their friendships addressed as part of their rehabilitation; however, the research literature has little guidance in this area.Studies reviewed of friendship intervention/programs for older adults yielded helpful lessons for consideration in developing this type of intervention/programming for people with aphasia.Interprofessional teams made up of rehabilitation professionals should address friendship for people with aphasia in both research and clinical practice.

Conversation as an Outcome of Aphasia Treatment: A Systematic Scoping Review.

PURPOSE: Conversation-focused speech-language pathology services are a top priority for people living with aphasia, but little is known about how researchers measure conversation as an outcome of treatment. This scoping review was undertaken to systematically review the evidence regarding the measurement of conversation in aphasia studies and to identify current practices and existing gaps. METHOD: A systematic literature search was conducted for studies published between January 1995 and September 2019 in multiple electronic databases. Covidence software was used to manage search results, study selection, and data charting processes. Data were extracted from each study and then collated and organized to elucidate the breadth of approaches, tools, or procedures oriented to measuring conversation as an outcome and identify gaps in the existing literature. RESULTS: The systematic search of the literature resulted in 1,244 studies. A total of 64 studies met inclusion criteria and were included in the review. The review summarizes the various tools and procedures used to measure conversation as an outcome of aphasia intervention, including variations in data collection and analysis procedures. The review also evaluates the quality of conversation measures in terms of psychometric properties and informal measures of validity. There was a total of 211 measures used across the 64 studies. CONCLUSIONS: While there was no clear measure that was objectively superior, several measures show promise and warrant future exploration. Some of the orientations, conceptualizations, and procedures we have presented can be seen as options that might be included in a future conversation-focused core outcome set. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.21514062.

Development and evaluation of the Basic Outcome Measure Protocol for Aphasia (BOMPA).

PURPOSE: The Basic Outcome Measure Protocol for Aphasia (BOMPA) is a practical tool that allows for a quick self-report on quality of life from the perspective of the person with aphasia, as well as a clinical evaluation of aphasia severity and the ability to participate in conversation. The primary aim of this paper is to describe development of BOMPA and report on results of an inter-rater reliability study involving speech-language pathology raters. METHOD: The inter-rater reliability study utilised a fully crossed design and included independent ratings of 12 videos by 20 speech-language pathologists. RESULT: Results indicate moderate to strong inter-rater reliability among participant speech-language pathology raters (0.65-0.96), as well as when comparing these participant ratings with an expert rater's gold standard (0.59-0.86). CONCLUSION: BOMPA may be a useful outcome measurement tool for time-pressed clinicians in clinical settings.

Fidelity protocol for the Action Success Knowledge (ASK) trial: a psychosocial intervention administered by speech and language therapists to prevent depression in people with post-stroke aphasia.

INTRODUCTION: Treatment fidelity is a complex, multifaceted evaluative process which refers to whether a studied intervention was delivered as intended. Monitoring and enhancing fidelity is one recommendation of the TiDIER (Template for Intervention Description and Replication) checklist, as fidelity can inform interpretation and conclusions drawn about treatment effects. Despite the methodological and translational benefits, fidelity strategies have been used inconsistently within health behaviour intervention studies; in particular, within aphasia intervention studies, reporting of fidelity remains relatively rare. This paper describes the development of a fidelity protocol for the Action Success Knowledge (ASK) study, a current cluster randomised trial investigating an early mood intervention for people with aphasia (a language disability caused by stroke). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A novel fidelity protocol and tool was developed to monitor and enhance fidelity within the two arms (experimental treatment and attention control) of the ASK study. The ASK fidelity protocol was developed based on the National Institutes of Health Behaviour Change Consortium fidelity framework. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study protocol was approved by the Darling Downs Hospital and Health Service Human Research Ethics Committee in Queensland, Australia under the National Mutual Acceptance scheme of multicentre human research projects. Specific ethics approval was obtained for those participating sites who were not under the National Mutual Agreement at the time of application. The monitoring and ongoing conduct of the research project is in line with requirements under the National Mutual Acceptance. On completion of the trial, findings from the fidelity reviews will be disseminated via publications and conference presentations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12614000979651.

The Impact of Exposure With No Training: Implications for Future Partner Training Research.

Purpose: This research note reports on an unexpected negative finding related to behavior change in a controlled trial designed to test whether partner training improves the conversational skills of volunteers. Method: The clinical trial involving training in "Supported Conversation for Adults with Aphasia" utilized a single-blind, randomized, controlled, pre-post design. Eighty participants making up 40 dyads of a volunteer conversation partner and an adult with aphasia were randomly allocated to either an experimental or control group of 20 dyads each. Descriptive statistics including exact 95% confidence intervals were calculated for the percentage of control group participants who got worse after exposure to individuals with aphasia. Results: Positive outcomes of training in Supported Conversation for Adults with Aphasia for both the trained volunteers and their partners with aphasia were reported by Kagan, Black, Felson Duchan, Simmons-Mackie, and Square in 2001. However, post hoc data analysis revealed that almost one third of untrained control participants had a negative outcome rather than the anticipated neutral or slightly positive outcome. Conclusions: If the results of this small study are in any way representative of what happens in real life, communication partner training in aphasia becomes even more important than indicated from the positive results of training studies. That is, it is possible that mere exposure to a communication disability such as aphasia could have negative impacts on communication and social interaction. This may be akin to what is known as a "nocebo" effect-something for partner training studies in aphasia to take into account.

Developing Accessible, Pictorial Versions of Health-Related Quality-of-Life Instruments Suitable for Economic Evaluation: A Report of Preliminary Studies Conducted in Canada and the United Kingdom.

A key component of the current framework for economic evaluation is the measurement and valuation of health outcomes using generic preference-based health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) instruments. In 2015, a research synthesis reported the absence of conceptual and empirical research regarding the appropriateness of current preference-based instruments for people with aphasia-a disorder affecting the use and understanding of language-and suggested the development and validation of an accessible, pictorial variant could be an appropriate direction for further research. This paper describes the respective rationale and development process for each of three preliminary studies that have been undertaken to develop pictorial variants of two widely used preference-based HRQoL instruments (EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L). The paper also proposes next steps for this program of research, drawing on the lessons learned from the preliminary work and the demand for a pictorial preference-based instrument in the research community. Guidance for the use of the preliminary, pictorial instruments is also provided.

Communicative Access Measures for Stroke: Development and Evaluation of a Quality Improvement Tool.

OBJECTIVES: To (1) develop a systems-level quality improvement tool targeting communicative access to information and decision-making for stroke patients with language disorders; and (2) evaluate the resulting tool-the Communicative Access Measures for Stroke (CAMS). DESIGN: Survey development and evaluation was in line with accepted guidelines and included item generation and reduction, survey formatting and composition, pretesting, pilot testing, and reliability assessment. SETTING: Development and evaluation were carried out in hospital and community agency settings. PARTICIPANTS: The project used a convenience sample of 31 participants for the survey development, and 63 participants for the CAMS reliability study (broken down into 6 administrators/managers, 32 frontline staff, 25 participants with aphasia). Eligible participants invited to the reliability study included individuals from 45 community-based organizations in Ontario as well as 4400 individuals from communities of practice. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Data were analyzed using kappa statistics and intraclass correlations for each item score on all surveys. RESULTS: A tool, the CAMS, comprising 3 surveys, was developed for health facilities from the perspectives of (1) administrators/policymakers, (2) staff/frontline health care providers, and (3) patients with aphasia (using a communicatively accessible version). Reliability for items on the CAMS-Administrator and CAMS-Staff surveys was moderate to high (kappa/intraclass correlation coefficients [ICCs], .54-1.00). As expected, reliability was lower for the CAMS-Patient survey, with most items having ICCs between 0.4 and 0.6. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that CAMS may provide useful quality improvement information for health care facilities with an interest in improving care for patients with stroke and aphasia.

Which outcomes are most important to people with aphasia and their families? an international nominal group technique study framed within the ICF.

PURPOSE: To identify important treatment outcomes from the perspective of people with aphasia and their families using the ICF as a frame of reference. METHODS: The nominal group technique was used with people with aphasia and their family members in seven countries to identify and rank important treatment outcomes from aphasia rehabilitation. People with aphasia identified outcomes for themselves; and family members identified outcomes for themselves and for the person with aphasia. Outcomes were analysed using qualitative content analysis and ICF linking. RESULTS: A total of 39 people with aphasia and 29 family members participated in one of 16 nominal groups. Inductive qualitative content analysis revealed the following six themes: (1) Improved communication; (2) Increased life participation; (3) Changed attitudes through increased awareness and education about aphasia; (4) Recovered normality; (5) Improved physical and emotional well-being; and (6) Improved health (and support) services. Prioritized outcomes for both participant groups linked to all ICF components; primary activity/participation (39%) and body functions (36%) for people with aphasia, and activity/participation (49%) and environmental factors (28%) for family members. Outcomes prioritized by family members relating to the person with aphasia, primarily linked to body functions (60%). CONCLUSIONS: People with aphasia and their families identified treatment outcomes which span all components of the ICF. This has implications for research outcome measurement and clinical service provision which currently focuses on the measurement of body function outcomes. The wide range of desired outcomes generated by both people with aphasia and their family members, highlights the importance of collaborative goal setting within a family-centred approach to rehabilitation. These results will be combined with other stakeholder perspectives to establish a core outcome set for aphasia treatment research. Implications for Rehabilitation Important outcomes for people with aphasia and their families span all components of the ICF. The relevancy and translation of research findings may be increased by measuring and reporting research outcomes which are important to people living with aphasia. The results of this study indicate that important treatment outcomes for people living with aphasia most frequently link to the activity/participation and body function components of the ICF. The outcomes identified in this study suggest a broad role for clinicians working in aphasia rehabilitation. The categories of identified outcomes may be used clinically as a starting point in goal-setting discussions with clients and their families.

Determinants of Living Well With Aphasia in the First Year Poststroke: A Prospective Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine factors that contribute to living well with aphasia in the first 12 months poststroke. DESIGN: Prospective longitudinal cohort study. SETTING: Hospitalized care, ambulatory care, and general community. PARTICIPANTS: A referred sample of people (N=58) with a first incidence of aphasia after stroke was assessed at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months postonset. Participants were recruited through speech-language pathologists in 2 capital cities in Australia. Presence of aphasia was determined through the Western Aphasia Battery-Revised by an experienced speech-language pathologist. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcomes were the 5 domains of the Assessment for Living with Aphasia at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months poststroke. The independent variables included demographics, physical functioning, social network, mood, aphasia severity, and a self-rating of successfully living with aphasia at the same time points. Mixed effects modeling was used to determine which factors contributed to the trajectory of each of the 5 domains of participation, impairment, environment, personal factors, and life with aphasia. RESULTS: Higher household income, larger social network size, being a woman, and having milder aphasia were positively associated with the participation domain. Graduate or postgraduate educational levels, low mood, and poor physical functioning were negatively associated with the participation domain. Factors positively associated with other domains included higher income, self-ratings of successfully living with aphasia, and aphasia severity. Low mood was consistently negatively associated with all of the domains. CONCLUSIONS: Psychosocial determinants were the most significant predictors of living well with aphasia in the first 12 months postonset. Aphasia rehabilitation needs to attend more to these factors to optimize outcomes.

Let's call it "aphasia": Rationales for eliminating the term "dysphasia".

Health professionals, researchers, and policy makers often consider the two terms aphasia and dysphasia to be synonymous. The aim of this article is to argue the merits of the exclusive use of the term aphasia and present a strategy for creating change through institutions such as the WHO-ICD. Our contention is that one term avoids confusion, speech-language pathologists prefer aphasia, scholarly publications indicate a preference for the term aphasia, stroke clinical guidelines indicate a preference for the term aphasia, consumer organizations use the title aphasia in their name and on their websites, and languages other than English use a term similar to aphasia. The use of the term dysphasia in the broader medical community may stem from the two terms being used interchangeably in the ICD10. Aphasia United http://www.shrs.uq.edu.au/aphasiaunited , an international movement for uniting the voice of all stakeholders in aphasia within an international context, will seek to eliminate the use of the term dysphasia.

Communication Partner Training in Aphasia: An Updated Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVES: To update a previous systematic review describing the effect of communication partner training on individuals with aphasia and their communication partners, with clinical questions addressing effects of partner training on language, communication activity/participation, psychosocial adjustment, and quality of life. DATA SOURCES: Twelve electronic databases were searched using 23 search terms. References from relevant articles were hand searched. STUDY SELECTION: Three reviewers independently reviewed abstracts, excluding those that failed to meet inclusion criteria. Thirty-two full text articles were reviewed by 2 independent reviewers. Articles not meeting inclusion criteria were eliminated, resulting in a corpus of 25 articles for full review. DATA EXTRACTION: For the 25 articles, 1 reviewer extracted descriptive data regarding participants, intervention, outcome measures, and results. A second reviewer verified the accuracy of the extracted data. DATA SYNTHESIS: The 3-member review team classified studies using the American Academy of Neurology levels of evidence. Two independent reviewers evaluated each article using design-specific tools to assess research quality. CONCLUSIONS: All 25 of the current review articles reported positive changes from partner training. Therefore, to date, 56 studies across 2 systematic reviews have reported positive outcomes from communication partner training in aphasia. The results of the current review are consistent with the previous review and necessitate no change to the earlier recommendations, suggesting that communication partner training should be conducted to improve partner skill in facilitating the communication of people with chronic aphasia. Additional high-quality research is needed to strengthen the original 2010 recommendations and expand recommendations to individuals with acute aphasia. High-quality clinical trials are also needed to demonstrate implementation of communication partner training in complex environments (eg, health care).

Reducing the psychosocial impact of aphasia on mood and quality of life in people with aphasia and the impact of caregiving in family members through the Aphasia Action Success Knowledge (Aphasia ASK) program: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: People with aphasia and their family members are at high risk of experiencing post stroke depression. The impact of early interventions on mood and quality of life for people with aphasia is unknown. METHODS/DESIGN: This study will determine whether an early intervention for both the person with aphasia after stroke and their family members leads to better mood and quality of life outcomes for people with aphasia, and less caregiver burden and better mental health for their family members. This is a multicenter, cluster-randomized controlled trial. Clusters, which are represented by Health Service Districts, will be randomized to the experimental intervention (Aphasia Action Success Knowledge Program) or an attention control (Secondary Stroke Prevention Information Program). People with aphasia and their family members will be blinded to the study design and treatment allocation (that is, will not know there are two arms to the study). Both arms of the study will receive usual care in addition to either the experimental or the attention control intervention. A total of 344 people with aphasia and their family members will be recruited. Considering a cluster size of 20, the required sample size can be achieved from 18 clusters. However, 20 clusters will be recruited to account for the potential of cluster attrition during the study. Primary outcome measures will be mood and quality of life of people with aphasia at 12 months post stroke. Secondary measures will be family member outcomes assessing the impact of caregiving and mental health, and self-reported stroke risk-related behaviors of people with aphasia. DISCUSSION: This is the first known program tailored for people with aphasia and their family members that aims to prevent depression in people with aphasia by providing intervention early after the stroke. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered in the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) as ACTRN12614000979651 . Date registered: 11 September 2014.

Conversation therapy for aphasia: a qualitative review of the literature.

BACKGROUND: A diverse literature addresses elements of conversation therapy in aphasia including intervention rooted in conversation analysis, partner training, group therapy and behavioural intervention. Currently there is no resource for clinicians or researchers that defines and organizes this information into a coherent synopsis describing various conversation therapy practices. AIMS: To organize information from varied sources into a descriptive overview of conversation therapy for aphasia. METHODS & PROCEDURES: Academic search engines were employed to identify research articles published between 1950 and September 2013 reporting on conversation therapy for aphasia. Thirty articles met criteria for review and were identified as primary sources for the qualitative review. Using qualitative methodology, relevant data were extracted from articles and categories were identified to create a descriptive taxonomy of conversation therapy for aphasia. MAIN CONTRIBUTION: Conversation interventions were divided into descriptive categories including: treatment participants (person with aphasia, partner, dyad), primary guiding orientation (conversation analysis, social model, behavioural, relationship centred), service delivery (individual, group), focus of intervention (generic/individualized; problem/solution oriented; compensatory), training methods (explicit/implicit; external/embedded), activities or tasks, and outcomes measured. Finally, articles were categorized by research design. There was marked variation in conversation therapy approaches and outcome measures reported and a notable gap in information about one-on-one conversation therapy for individuals with aphasia. CONCLUSIONS & IMPLICATIONS: This review provides a description of various conversation therapy approaches and identified gaps in the existing literature. Valid measures of natural conversation, research on one-on-one conversation approaches for individuals with aphasia, and a systematic body of evidence consisting of high quality research are needed.

The assessment for living with aphasia: reliability and construct validity.

The Assessment for Living with Aphasia (ALA) is a pictographic, self-report measure of aphasia-related quality-of-life. Research was undertaken to assess test-re-test reliability, construct validity, and the ability to discriminate aphasia severity. The ALA was administered to 101 participants with aphasia on two occasions. Test-re-test reliability was evaluated using intra-class correlations and internal consistency using Cronbach's alpha. Three reference measures were administered to assess construct validity. A focus group reported on ease of administration and face validity. Analysis identified 15 out of 52 rated items for elimination. For the remaining items, test-re-test reliability was excellent for the total score (ICC = .86) and moderate-to-strong for a priori domains adapted from the WHO ICF (.68-.83). Internal consistency was acceptable-to-high. Significant correlations were observed between the ALA and reference tests (SAQOL-39, .72; p < .001; VASES, .62, p = .03; BOSS CAPD, -.69; p = .008). The language impairment domain discriminated between all aphasia severity groups, while mild aphasia was different from moderate and severe aphasia in participation and total scores. The ALA was reportedly easy to administer and captured key aspects of the experience of living with aphasia. Results suggest acceptable test-re-test reliability, internal consistency and construct validity of the ALA.

Systematic review of communication partner training in aphasia: methodological quality.

Twenty-three studies identified from a previous systematic review examining the effects of communication partner training on persons with aphasia and their communication partners were evaluated for methodological quality. Two reviewers rated the studies on defined methodological quality criteria relevant to each study design. There were 11 group studies, seven single-subject participant design studies, and five qualitative studies. Quality scores were derived for each study. The mean inter-rater reliability of scores for each study design ranged from 85-93%, with Cohen's Kappa indicating substantial agreement between raters. Methodological quality of research on communication partner training in aphasia was highly varied. Overall, group studies employed the least rigorous methodology as compared to single subject and qualitative research. Only two of 11 group studies complied with more than half of the quality criteria. No group studies reported therapist blinding and only one group study reported participant blinding. Across all types of studies, the criterion of treatment fidelity was most commonly omitted. Failure to explicitly report certain methodological quality criteria may account for low ratings. Using methodological rating scales specific to the type of study design may help improve the methodological quality of aphasia treatment studies, including those on communication partner training.

The first 3-months post-stroke: what facilitates successfully living with aphasia?

This study used a qualitative approach to describe the experience of the first 3 months post-stroke in order to identify factors which facilitate successfully living with aphasia. Fifteen participants completed semi-structured interviews and self-perceived ratings of how successfully he or she was living with aphasia. A number of themes were identified from the interviews, including: a need to do things in order to be actively engaged in rehabilitation; increase independence and have a purpose in life; the importance of social support; the value of rehabilitation; a need to adapt and make adjustments; and having a positive outlook. These results suggest that a range of service delivery models need to be considered during the early stages post-stroke in order to address individual needs and so that long-term outcomes of people with aphasia may be improved.