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

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

Comprehensive quality assessment for aphasia rehabilitation after stroke: protocol for a multicentre, mixed-methods study.

INTRODUCTION: People with aphasia following stroke experience disproportionally poor outcomes, yet there is no comprehensive approach to measuring the quality of aphasia services. The Meaningful Evaluation of Aphasia SeRvicES (MEASuRES) minimum dataset was developed in partnership with people with lived experience of aphasia, clinicians and researchers to address this gap. It comprises sociodemographic characteristics, quality indicators, treatment descriptors and outcome measurement instruments. We present a protocol to pilot the MEASuRES minimum dataset in clinical practice, describe the factors that hinder or support implementation and determine meaningful thresholds of clinical change for core outcome measurement instruments. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This research aims to deliver a comprehensive quality assessment toolkit for poststroke aphasia services in four studies. A multicentre pilot study (study 1) will test the administration of the MEASuRES minimum dataset within five Australian health services. An embedded mixed-methods process evaluation (study 2) will evaluate the performance of the minimum dataset and explore its clinical applicability. A consensus study (study 3) will establish consumer-informed thresholds of meaningful change on core aphasia outcome constructs, which will then be used to establish minimal important change values for corresponding core outcome measurement instruments (study 4). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Studies 1 and 2 have been registered with the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry (ACTRN12623001313628). Ethics approval has been obtained from the Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital (HREC/2023/MNHB/95293) and The University of Queensland (2022/HE001946 and 2023/HE001175). Study findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations and engagement with relevant stakeholders including healthcare providers, policy-makers, stroke and rehabilitation audit and clinical quality registry custodians, consumer support organisations, and individuals with aphasia and their families.

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

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

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

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

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

Acceptability, feasibility and preliminary efficacy of low-moderate intensity Constraint Induced Aphasia Therapy and Multi-Modality Aphasia Therapy in chronic aphasia after stroke.

BACKGROUND: High-intensity Constraint-Induced Aphasia Therapy Plus (CIAT-Plus) and Multi-Modality Aphasia Therapy (M-MAT) are effective interventions for chronic post-stroke aphasia but challenging to provide in clinical practice. Providing these interventions may be more feasible at lower intensities, but comparative evidence is lacking. We therefore explored feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary efficacy of the treatments at a lower intensity. METHODS: A multisite, single-blinded, randomized Phase II trial was conducted within the Phase III COMPARE trial. Groups of participants with chronic aphasia from the usual care arm of the COMPARE trial were randomized to M-MAT or CIAT-Plus, delivered at the same dose as the COMPARE trial but at lower intensity (6 hours/week × 5 weeks rather than 15 hours/week × 2 weeks). Blinded assessors measured aphasia severity (Western Aphasia Battery-Revised Aphasia Quotient), word retrieval, connected speech, multimodal communication, functional communication, and quality of life immediately post interventions and after 12 weeks. Feasibility and acceptability were explored. RESULTS: Of 70 eligible participants, 77% consented to the trial; 78% of randomized participants completed intervention and 98% of assessment visits were conducted. Fatigue and distress ratings were low with no related withdrawals. Adverse events related to the trial (n = 4) were mild in severity. Statistically significant treatment effects were demonstrated on word retrieval and functional communication and both interventions were equally effective. CONCLUSIONS: Low-moderateintensity CIAT-Plus and M-MAT were feasible and acceptable. Both interventions show preliminary efficacy at a low-moderate intensity. These results support a powered trial investigating these interventions at a low-moderate intensity.

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

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

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

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

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

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

"We got there in the end . somehow, we got there": a qualitative study of healthcare professionals providing care in the community to people with chronic aphasia, and how technology could assist.

PURPOSE: Little is known about the experience of healthcare professionals (HCPs) in the community providing healthcare to people with aphasia. In this study we aimed to explore the experiences of community HCPs in healthcare conversations with people with aphasia, and whether a high-tech, purpose-built aphasia app could assist. METHODS: A generic qualitative study was conducted. HCPs from seven different clinical backgrounds were interviewed and data was thematically analysed. RESULTS: The experiences of healthcare providers providing healthcare to people with aphasia were identified in six major themes. These were: (1) Healthcare communication topics; (2) HCP knowledge; (3) Communication exchanges during the interactions (4) Communication impacts on care; (5) Interactions and relationships grew easier over time; and (6) How technology could help interactions. CONCLUSIONS: HCPs with more aphasia knowledge reported having more positive experiences. Unsuccessful interactions were believed to lead to negative emotional responses in people with aphasia and HCPs, and that miscommunications could lead to compromised care. HCPs reported that interactions and relationships with people with aphasia grew easier over time. HCPs need system level support to acquire the knowledge and skills needed to engage people with aphasia in effective healthcare conversations. Technology has potential to improve interactions.

The overall experience of Health care professionals (HCPs) providing healthcare to people with aphasia was reported to be challenging, taking extra emotional and intellectual effort and time.When communication was unsuccessful this often led to emotional distress for both the HCP and person with aphasia and compromised care for the person with aphasia.HCPs with more knowledge and skill, who had conversation partner training, were more likely to have successful communication interactions.More system-level supports such as conversation partner training, and technology support were perceived to be beneficial.

Elizabeth Usher memorial lecture: Beyond our practice borders-using a biopsychosocial framework to improve long-term outcomes for people living with aphasia.

Purpose: Over 140 000 Australians live with aphasia after stroke, with this number of people living with aphasia increasing significantly when aphasia arising from traumatic brain injury, neoplasm, and infectious and progressive neurological diseases is also included. The resulting communication disability frequently compromises every aspect of daily life, significantly impacting everyday activity, employment, social participation, mental health, identity, and family functioning. Rehabilitation services rarely meet the needs of this group who have, for example, poorer healthcare outcomes than stroke peers without aphasia, nor address long-term recovery and support needs.Method: In this discussion paper, I argue that given the broad impacts of aphasia, a biopsychosocial approach to aphasia rehabilitation is required. Rehabilitation must include: interventions to improve the communication environment; programs that directly target identity, wellbeing, and mental health; and therapies focusing on functional activity, communication participation, and long-term self-management.Result: The evidence for these approaches is mounting and includes strongly stated consumer needs. I discuss the need for multidisciplinary involvement and argue that for speech-language pathologists to achieve such comprehensive service provision, an expanded scope of practice is required.Conclusion: There is a need to rethink standard therapy approaches, timeframes, and funding mechanisms. It is time to reflect on our practice borders to ask what must change and define how change can be achieved.

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.

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

PURPOSE: Aphasia is an acquired communication disability resulting from impairments in language processing following brain injury, most commonly stroke. People with aphasia experience difficulties in all modalities of language that impact their quality of life. Therefore, researchers have investigated the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) to deliver innovative solutions in Aphasia management and rehabilitation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a scoping review of the use of AI in aphasia research and rehabilitation to explore the evolution of AI applications to aphasia, the progression of technologies and applications. Furthermore, we aimed to identify gaps in the use of AI in Aphasia to highlight the potential areas where AI might add value. We analysed 77 studies to determine the research objectives, the history of AI techniques in Aphasia and their progression over time. RESULTS: Most of the studies focus on automated assessment using AI, with recent studies focusing on AI for therapy and personalised assistive systems. Starting from prototypes and simulations, the use of AI has progressed to include supervised machine learning, unsupervised machine learning, natural language processing, fuzzy rules, and genetic programming. CONCLUSION: Considerable scope remains to align AI technology with aphasia rehabilitation to empower patient-centred, customised rehabilitation and enhanced self-management.IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONAphasia is an acquired communication disorder that impacts everyday functioning due to impairments in speech, auditory comprehension, reading, and writing.Given this communication burden, researchers have focused on utilising artificial intelligence (AI) methods for assessment, therapy and self-management.From a conceptualisation era in the early 1940s, the application of AI has evolved with significant developments in AI applications at different points in time.Despite these developments, there are ample opportunities to exploit the use of AI to deliver more advanced applications in self-management and personalising care.

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.

The nature of inpatient rehabilitation for people with aphasia from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Due to language and cultural barriers, people with aphasia from culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) backgrounds are at risk of disadvantage in their access to comprehensive care. They are at higher risk of poorer inpatient outcomes in addition to challenges in receiving appropriate aphasia assessment and intervention. OBJECTIVES: This study aims to examine the extent and nature of what is known about the inpatient phase of aphasia rehabilitation for CALD stroke survivors and identify potential research gaps in the literature for investigation. METHODS: A scoping review with systematic search was conducted in September 2020 following the PRISMA Scoping Review checklist. Five electronic databases were searched using a combination of terms pertaining to "aphasia," "inpatient care" and "CALD." Key variables were extracted from studies that met the inclusion criteria for analysis. RESULTS: Eighteen studies were yielded. Data regarding the inpatient phase of care indicate that CALD people with aphasia do not always receive comprehensive assessment or intervention in all their languages that may impact their discharge destination and access to community services. Speech-language pathologists (SLPs) report numerous barriers to service provision for this population. No studies investigated the degree and nature of differences in outcomes between CALD and non-CALD stroke survivors with aphasia. CONCLUSIONS: CALD stroke survivors with aphasia inconsistently access SLP services in hospital. Assessment is unlikely to be conducted in patient primary languages and therapy is usually provided in the language of SLPs. Further research is required to determine whether this impacts functional outcomes and health services.

A phase II randomised controlled trial evaluating the feasibility and preliminary efficacy of an education program on speech-language pathologist' self-efficacy, and self-rated competency for counselling to support psychological wellbeing in people with post-stroke aphasia.

BACKGROUND: Speech-language pathologists (SLPs) utilize counseling to support the psychological wellbeing of people with post-stroke aphasia, however, SLPs receive variable, usually limited, counseling education. Counseling education may be effective in improving SLPs' knowledge, skills, and confidence in counseling in post-stroke aphasia. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to evaluate the feasibility and preliminary efficacy of a novel online counseling education program for SLPs working with people with post-stroke aphasia. METHOD: Our study was a Phase II, two-arm pilot randomized controlled trial with a waitlist control. Participants (n = 49) were stratified by previous counseling training (≥1 day) and co-work with psychologists when addressing psychological wellbeing in post-stroke aphasia, and randomized to either the education program or waitlist control arm. We developed an education program (7-hours self-directed learning; 3-hour online workshop) for the trial. Feasibility outcomes included SLP recruitment, workshop attendance, and participant attrition at follow-up. Participants' counseling self-efficacy and self-rated competency were assessed pre- and post-program (primary endpoint) and at 5-week follow-up. RESULTS: Forty-four (90%) participants attended the workshop with forty-one (84%) participants completing the trial. There was a significant interaction (large effect size) between time and group supporting a positive effect of the program on counseling self-efficacy, F(1,44) = 39.402, p < . 0005, ηp2 = . 472 and self-rated competency for counseling, F(1,44) = 31.824, p < . 0005, ηp2 = . 420. The effects were maintained at follow-up with self-rated competency scores demonstrating further significant improvement. CONCLUSIONS: The demonstrated feasibility and preliminary efficacy of this online counseling program warrant a future definitive trial.

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.

Examining Dose Frameworks to Improve Aphasia Rehabilitation Research.

The effect of treatment dose on recovery of post-stroke aphasia is not well understood. Inconsistent conceptualization, measurement, and reporting of the multiple dimensions of dose hinders efforts to evaluate dose-response relations in aphasia rehabilitation research. We review the state of dose conceptualization in aphasia rehabilitation and compare the applicability of 3 existing dose frameworks to aphasia rehabilitation research-the Frequency, Intensity, Time, and Type (FITT) principle, the Cumulative Intervention Intensity (CII) framework, and the Multidimensional Dose Articulation Framework (MDAF). The MDAF specifies dose in greater detail than the CII framework and the FITT principle. On this basis, we selected the MDAF to be applied to 3 diverse examples of aphasia rehabilitation research. We next critically examined applicability of the MDAF to aphasia rehabilitation research and identified the next steps needed to systematically conceptualize, measure, and report the multiple dimensions of dose, which together can progress understanding of the effect of treatment dose on outcomes for people with aphasia after stroke. Further consideration is required to enable application of this framework to aphasia interventions that focus on participation, personal, and environmental interventions and to understand how the construct of episode difficulty applies across therapeutic activities used in aphasia interventions.

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

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

Treatment fidelity monitoring, reporting and findings in a complex aphasia intervention trial: a substudy of the Very Early Rehabilitation in SpEech (VERSE) trial.

BACKGROUND: Treatment fidelity is inconsistently reported in aphasia research, contributing to uncertainty about the effectiveness of types of aphasia therapy following stroke. We outline the processes and outcomes of treatment fidelity monitoring in a pre-specified secondary analysis of the VERSE trial. METHODS: VERSE was a 3-arm, single-blinded RCT with a 12-week primary endpoint comparing Usual Care (UC) to two higher intensity treatments: Usual Care-Plus (UC-Plus) and VERSE, a prescribed intervention. Primary outcome results were previously reported. This secondary analysis focused on treatment fidelity. Video-recorded treatment sessions in the higher intensity study arms were evaluated for treatment adherence and treatment differentiation. Treatment components were evaluated using a pre-determined fidelity checklist. PRIMARY OUTCOME: prescribed amount of therapy time (minutes); secondary outcomes: (i) adherence to therapy protocol (%) and (ii) treatment differentiation between control and high intensity groups. RESULTS: Two hundred forty-six participants were randomised to Usual Care (n=81), Usual Care-Plus (n=82), and VERSE (n=83). One hundred thirty-five (82%) participants in higher intensity intervention arms received the minimum prescribed therapy minutes. From 10,805 (UC 7787; UC-Plus 1450; VERSE 1568) service events, 431 treatment protocol deviations were noted in 114 participants. Four hundred thirty-seven videos were evaluated. The VERSE therapists achieved over 84% adherence to key protocol elements. Higher stroke and aphasia severity, older age, and being in the UC-Plus group predicted more treatment deviations. CONCLUSIONS: We found high levels of treatment adherence and differentiation between the intervention arms, providing greater confidence interpreting our results. The comprehensive systems for intervention fidelity monitoring and reporting in this trial make an important contribution to aphasia research and, we argue, should set a new standard for future aphasia studies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ACTRN 12613000776707.

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

BACKGROUND: While meta-analyses confirm treatment for chronic post-stroke aphasia is effective, a lack of comparative evidence for different interventions limits prescription accuracy. We investigated whether Constraint-Induced Aphasia Therapy Plus (CIAT-plus) and/or Multimodality Aphasia Therapy (M-MAT) provided greater therapeutic benefit compared with usual community care and were differentially effective according to baseline aphasia severity. METHODS: We conducted a three-arm, multicentre, parallel group, open-label, blinded endpoint, phase III, randomised-controlled trial. We stratified eligible participants by baseline aphasia on the Western Aphasia Battery-Revised Aphasia Quotient (WAB-R-AQ). Groups of three participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to 30 hours of CIAT-Plus or M-MAT or to usual care (UC). Primary outcome was change in aphasia severity (WAB-R-AQ) from baseline to therapy completion analysed in the intention-to-treat population. Secondary outcomes included word retrieval, connected speech, functional communication, multimodal communication, quality of life and costs. RESULTS: We analysed 201 participants (70 in CIAT-Plus, 70 in M-MAT and 61 in UC). Aphasia severity was not significantly different between groups at postintervention: 1.05 points (95% CI -0.78 to 2.88; p=0.36) UC group vs CIAT-Plus; 1.06 points (95% CI -0.78 to 2.89; p=0.36) UC group vs M-MAT; 0.004 points (95% CI -1.76 to 1.77; p=1.00) CIAT-Plus vs M-MAT. Word retrieval, functional communication and communication-related quality of life were significantly improved following CIAT-Plus and M-MAT. Word retrieval benefits were maintained at 12-week follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: CIAT-Plus and M-MAT were effective for word retrieval, functional communication, and quality of life, while UC was not. Future studies should explore predictive characteristics of responders and impacts of maintenance doses. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN 2615000618550.