The City Gesture Checklist: The development of a novel gesture assessment.

BACKGROUND: People with aphasia rely on gesture more than healthy controls to get their message across, but use a limited range of gesture types. Gesture therapy is thus a potential avenue of intervention for people with aphasia. However, currently no gesture assessment evaluates how they use gesture. Such a tool could inform therapy targets and measure outcomes. In gesture research, many different coding categories are used to describe gesture forms and functions. These coding methods are prohibitively time-consuming to use in clinical practice. There is therefore a need for a 'quick and dirty' method of assessing gesture use. AIMS: To investigate current practice among UK-based clinicians (speech and language therapists) in relation to gesture assessment and therapy, to synthesize gesture-coding frameworks used in aphasia research, to develop a gesture checklist based on the synthesized coding frameworks suitable for use in clinical practice, and to investigate the interrater reliability (IRR) of the checklist among experienced and unfamiliar users. METHODS & PROCEDURES: The research team synthesized seven gesture-coding frameworks and trialled three resulting prototype checklists at a co-design workshop with 20 clinicians. Attending clinicians were also consulted about their current clinical gesture practice using a questionnaire. A final City Gesture Checklist (CGC) was developed based upon outcomes and feedback from the workshop. The IRR of the CGC was evaluated between the research team and 11 further clinicians within a second workshop. Both groups used the CGC to count gestures in video clips of people with aphasia talking to a conversation partner. MAIN CONTRIBUTION: A total of 18 workshop attendees completed the current practice questionnaire. Of these, 10 reported assessing gesture informally and five also used formal assessment. Gesture-coding synthesis highlighted six main categories of gesture form. Clinicians at the co-design workshop provided feedback on prototype checklists regarding the relevance and usability of the gesture categories, layout, use of images and instructions. A final version of the CGC was created incorporating their recommendations. The IRR for the CGC was moderate between both the researchers and clinicians. CONCLUSIONS & IMPLICATIONS: The CGC can be used to assess the types of gesture that people with aphasia produce. The IRR was moderate amongst both experienced users and new users who had received no training. Future research directions include investigating how to improve IRR, evaluating intra-rater reliability and sensitivity to change, and exploring use of the CGC in clinical practice. What this paper adds What is already known on the subject People with aphasia rely on gesture more than healthy speakers, yet use a more limited range of gesture types. Gesture therapy is used by clinicians with the aim of helping people with aphasia to compensate for their language impairment and/or to facilitate speech. What this paper adds to existing knowledge This study explores current gesture assessment practice among UK-based clinicians and synthesizes the coding categories used in the literature about gesture research in aphasia. It describes the development of a novel outcome measure, the CGC, and preliminary testing of its IRR. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work? This 'quick and dirty' tool enables clinicians to analyse and record the types of gesture produced by people with aphasia without the need for gesture coding. Preliminary findings suggest that clinicians can use it with a fair degree of reliability by following the checklist's written instructions.

Treatment fidelity of technology-enhanced reading therapy (CommuniCATE) for people with aphasia.

BACKGROUND: Treatment fidelity (TF), that is, the degree to which the treatment delivery has adhered to protocol, is an important aspect of establishing treatment validity and reliability. Research has shown that establishing TF is only done in a small percentage of aphasia treatment studies. AIMS: This project supports the work of the CommuniCATE study, which explored the benefits of technology-enhanced aphasia therapy on participants' reading, writing, speech and conversation skills. It examines the TF of the Reading strand of the CommuniCATE project by assessing whether the therapy adhered to the protocol. The following research questions were asked: Does treatment delivery adhere to treatment protocol? Does the degree of TF vary according to the person delivering the therapy (i.e. student therapist or qualified therapist)? Does the degree of TF vary over time (early treatment sessions compared with later treatment sessions)? Was the checklist tool reliable? METHODS & PROCEDURES: This study assessed the fidelity of 38 retrospective video recordings of therapy. It used a checklist measure of criteria to which the delivery of the sessions should adhere, and against which the sessions were rated. Participants were the people with aphasia receiving therapy, the students and qualified speech and language therapists delivering therapy, and the independent raters assessing the sessions. A sample of sessions was randomly chosen, including sessions delivered by qualified therapists and by students, and sessions from different time points in the treatment process. The fidelity was rated by the first author, and the fidelity rating calculated as a percentage. Comparisons in fidelity scores for the different variables were drawn using Mann-Whitney tests. The reliability of the checklist was assessed through inter and intra-rater reliability testing, and the results were analysed using Kappa statistics. OUTCOMES & RESULTS: High fidelity was found across all therapy conditions with a mean score of 98.2%. Fidelity scores were not affected by the administrator of therapy; sessions delivered by qualified and student therapists were rated equally highly. There was a small but significant effect of time, with later treatment sessions scoring more highly than earlier sessions. However, scores across both periods > 90%. Inter-rater reliability found a high percentage agreement of 93.3% and a Poor Kappa agreement level. Intra-rater agreement found a high percentage agreement of 97.3% and a Fair Kappa agreement level. CONCLUSIONS & IMPLICATIONS: The CommuniCATE reading therapy was implemented as per the protocol across time points, and withstood delegation to students. The high fidelity and good reliability scores have positive implications for the study's validity and reliability, and for the study's replication. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: What is already known on the subject TF refers to the degree to which the delivery of core components of a treatment matches the implementation guidelines, that is, the adherence to protocol. Despite the acknowledged importance of TF reporting, this is often neglected in the literature. What this paper adds to existing knowledge This paper shows that the TF assessment of the CommuniCATE study (reading strand) found a 98.2% fidelity score, and that high fidelity was not compromised across treatment conditions. This paper outlines the principles of TF and highlights the need for measures to be in place to establish TF, for example, manuals, training and supervision; and to monitor TF, for example, via the use of checklists. This paper also underlines the scarcity of TF measures and checks in aphasia research. This paper therefore serves as a model of TF practice in aphasia therapy research. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work? This study contributes to the findings of the CommuniCATE project (reading strand), and the high fidelity findings enhance the validity of the project and indicate that the therapy manual and training enable accurate implementation of delivery. This paper also contributes to the literature on TF evaluation in aphasia studies, which is presently lacking, and highlights the need for increased focus on the optimum strategies of TF reporting.

Technology-enhanced writing therapy for people with aphasia: results of a quasi-randomized waitlist controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Acquired writing impairment, or dysgraphia, is common in aphasia. It affects both handwriting and typing, and may recover less well than other aphasic symptoms. Dysgraphia is an increasing priority for intervention, particularly for those wishing to participate in online written communication. Effective dysgraphia treatment studies have been reported, but many did not target, or did not achieve, improvements in functional writing. Functional outcomes might be promoted by therapies that exploit digital technologies, such as voice recognition and word prediction software. AIMS: This study evaluated the benefits of technology-enhanced writing therapy for people with acquired dysgraphia. It aimed to explore the impact of therapy on a functional writing activity, and to examine whether treatment remediated or compensated for the writing impairment. The primary question was: Does therapy improve performance on a functional assessment of writing; and, if so, do gains occur only when writing is assisted by technology? Secondary measures examined whether therapy improved unassisted written naming, functional communication, mood and quality of life. METHODS & PROCEDURES: The study employed a quasi-randomized waitlist controlled design. A total of 21 people with dysgraphia received 12 h of writing therapy either immediately or after a 6-week delay. The primary outcome measure was a functional assessment of writing, which was administered in handwriting and on a computer with assistive technology enabled. Secondary measures were: The Boston Naming Test (written version), Communication Activities of Daily Living-2, Visual Analogue Mood Scales (Sad question), and the Assessment of Living with Aphasia. Analyses of variance (ANOVA) were used to examine change on the outcome measures over two time points, between which the immediate group had received therapy but the delayed group had not. Pre-therapy, post-therapy and follow-up scores on the measures were also examined for all participants. OUTCOMES & RESULTS: Time × group interactions in the ANOVA analyses showed that therapy improved performance on the functional writing assessment. Further interactions with condition showed that gains occurred only when writing was assisted by technology. There were no significant interactions in the analyses of the secondary outcome measures. A treatment effect on these measures was therefore unconfirmed. CONCLUSIONS & IMPLICATIONS: This study showed that 21 people with dysgraphia improved on a functional writing measure following therapy using assistive technology. The results suggest that treatment compensated for, rather than remediated, the impairment, given that unassisted writing did not change. Further studies of technology-enhanced writing therapy are warranted.

A comparison of remote therapy, face to face therapy and an attention control intervention for people with aphasia: a quasi-randomised controlled feasibility study.

OBJECTIVE: To test the feasibility of a randomised controlled trial comparing face to face and remotely delivered word finding therapy for people with aphasia. DESIGN: A quasi-randomised controlled feasibility study comparing remote therapy delivered from a University lab, remote therapy delivered from a clinical site, face to face therapy and an attention control condition. SETTING: A University lab and NHS outpatient service. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-one people with aphasia following left hemisphere stroke. INTERVENTIONS: Eight sessions of word finding therapy, delivered either face to face or remotely, were compared to an attention control condition comprising eight sessions of remotely delivered supported conversation. The remote conditions used mainstream video conferencing technology. OUTCOME MEASURES: Feasibility was assessed by recruitment and attrition rates, participant observations and interviews, and treatment fidelity checking. Effects of therapy on word retrieval were assessed by tests of picture naming and naming in conversation. RESULTS: Twenty-one participants were recruited over 17 months, with one lost at baseline. Compliance and satisfaction with the intervention was good. Treatment fidelity was high for both remote and face to face delivery (1251/1421 therapist behaviours were compliant with the protocol). Participants who received therapy improved on picture naming significantly more than controls (mean numerical gains: 20.2 (remote from University); 41 (remote from clinical site); 30.8 (face to face); 5.8 (attention control); P <.001). There were no significant differences between groups in the assessment of conversation. CONCLUSIONS: Word finding therapy can be delivered via mainstream internet video conferencing. Therapy improved picture naming, but not naming in conversation.

Methods to advance health equity and social justice in healthcare: Protocol for a scoping review on the utilisation of routinely collected data.

BACKGROUND: Many areas of healthcare are impacted by a paucity of research that is translatable to clinical practice. Research utilising real-world data, such as routinely collected patient data, may be one option to efficiently create evidence to inform practice and service delivery. Such studies are also valuable for exploring (in)equity of services and outcomes, and benefit from using non-selected samples representing the diversity of the populations served in the 'real world'. This scoping review aims to identify and map the published research which utilises routinely collected clinical healthcare data. A secondary aim is to explore the extent to which this literature supports the pursuit of social justice in health, including health inequities and intersectional approaches. METHOD: This review utilises Arksey and O'Malley's methodological framework for scoping reviews and draws on the recommended enhancements of this framework to promote a team-based and mixed methods approach. This includes searching electronic databases and screening papers based on a pre-specified inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data relevant to the research aims will be extracted from included papers, including the clinical/professional area of the topic, the source of data that was used, and whether it addresses elements of social justice. All screening and reviewing will be collaborative and iterative, drawing on strengths of the research team and responsive changes to challenges will be made. Quantitative data will be analysed descriptively, and conceptual content analysis will be utilised to understand qualitative data. These will be collectively synthesised in alignment to the research aims. CONCLUSION: Our findings will highlight the extent to which such research is being conducted and published, including gaps and make recommendations for future endeavours for real-world data studies. The findings from this scoping review will be relevant for practitioners and researchers, as well as health service managers, commissioners, and research funders.

Delivering group support for people with aphasia in a virtual world: experiences of service providers.

PURPOSE: This study explored the acceptability to service providers of delivering a novel group support intervention for people with aphasia (PWA) in a virtual world. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The service providers were six group coordinators and 10 volunteers. Fourteen of the service providers participated in a semi-structured qualitative interview and 15 took part in a consensus group discussion. Qualitative interviews were analysed using framework analysis. For consensus group discussions, nominal group rankings were analysed and semantically similar responses were identified. RESULTS: Service providers described the virtual world as a safe space in which to communicate, connect, and experiment. The key barriers were technical, particularly relating to sound and connectivity issues. Service providers suggested a range of improvements to the virtual world and intervention programme. They reported that PWA benefitted from accessing a support group in a virtual world, with opportunities to connect socially and to develop their communication skills. CONCLUSIONS: Service providers found delivery of group support intervention in a virtual world to be acceptable. The use of a bespoke virtual world to deliver group support intervention may enhance the experience and increase its accessibility, enabling more PWA to benefit from this type of intervention.Implications for rehabilitationPeople with aphasia benefit from group support intervention but may find it difficult to access face-to-face groups.Delivery of group support intervention in a virtual world is acceptable to service providers, can enhance the experience and increase accessibility of groups.Technical challenges present potential barriers when delivering group support in a virtual world, relating particularly to sound and connectivity.Potential benefits of this model of delivery, as perceived by service providers, include opportunities to connect socially and to develop communication skills plus specific and strong levels of enjoyment of the virtual context.

A randomised trial of social support group intervention for people with aphasia: A Novel application of virtual reality.

About a third of strokes cause aphasia, or language loss, with profound consequences for the person's social participation and quality of life. These problems may be mitigated by group social support. But this intervention is not available to all individuals. This study investigated whether it is feasible to deliver group social support to people with aphasia via a multi-user, virtual reality platform. It also explored the indicative effects of intervention and the costs. Intervention aimed to promote wellbeing and communicative success. It enabled participants to form new social connections and share experiences of living with aphasia. It comprised 14 sessions delivered over 6 months and was led by community based co-ordinators and volunteers. Feasibility measures comprised: recruitment and retention rates, compliance with intervention and assessment of treatment fidelity. Effects of intervention were explored using a waitlist randomised controlled design, with outcome measures of wellbeing, communication, social connectedness and quality of life. Two intervention groups were randomised to an immediate condition and two were randomised to a delayed condition. The main analysis explored scores on the measures between two time points, between which those in the immediate condition had received intervention, but those in the delayed group had not (yet). A comprehensive approach to economic data collection ensured that all costs of treatment delivery were recorded. Feasibility findings showed that the recruitment target was met (N = 34) and 85.3% (29/34) of participants completed intervention. All groups ran the 14 sessions as planned, and participants attended a mean of 11.4 sessions (s.d. 2.8), which was 81.6% of the intended dose. Fidelity checking showed minimal drift from the manualised intervention. No significant change was observed on any of the outcome measures, although the study was not powered to detect these. Costs varied across the four groups, from £7,483 - £12,562 British Pounds Sterling ($10,972 - $18,419 US dollars), depending on travel costs, the relative contributions of volunteers and the number of hardware loans that were needed. The results suggest that a larger trial of remote group support, using virtual reality, would be merited. However the treatment content and regime, and the selection of outcome measures should be reviewed before conducting the trial. Trail registration: Study registered with ClinicalTrials.gov; Identifier: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/NCT03115268.

Technology-Enhanced Reading Therapy for People With Aphasia: Findings From a Quasirandomized Waitlist Controlled Study.

Purpose This study investigated the effects of technology-enhanced reading therapy for people with reading impairments, using mainstream assistive reading technologies alongside reading strategies. Method The study used a quasirandomized waitlist controlled design. Twenty-one people with reading impairments following stroke were randomly assigned to receive 14 hr of therapy immediately or after a 6-week delay. During therapy, participants were trained to use assistive reading technology that offered a range of features to support reading comprehension. They developed skills in using the technology independently and in applying the technology to their personal reading goals. The primary outcome measure assessed reading comprehension, using Gray Oral Reading Test-Fourth Edition (GORT-4). Secondary measures were as follows: Reading Comprehension Battery for Aphasia-Second Edition, Reading Confidence and Emotions Questionnaire, Communication Activities of Daily Living-Second Edition, Visual Analog Mood Scales, and Assessment of Living With Aphasia. Matched texts were used with the GORT-4 to compare technology-assisted and unassisted reading comprehension. Mixed analyses of variance explored change between T1 and T2, when the immediate group had received therapy but the delayed group had not, thus serving as untreated controls. Pretherapy, posttherapy, and follow-up scores on the measures were also examined for all participants. Results GORT-4 results indicated that the immediately treated group improved significantly in technology-assisted reading following therapy, but not in unassisted reading. However, the data were not normally distributed, and secondary nonparametric analysis was not significant. The control group was unstable over the baseline, improving significantly in unassisted reading. The whole-group analysis showed significant gains in assisted (but not unassisted) reading after therapy that were maintained at follow-up. The Reading Confidence and Emotions Questionnaire results improved significantly following therapy, with good maintenance of change. Results on all other secondary measures were not significant. Conclusions Technology-assisted reading comprehension improved following the intervention, with treatment compensating for, rather than remediating, the reading impairment. Participants' confidence and emotions associated with reading also improved. Gains were achieved after 14 therapy sessions, using assistive technologies that are widely available and relatively affordable, meaning that this approach could be implemented in clinical practice.

Enhancing communication through gesture and naming therapy.

PURPOSE: In this study, the authors investigated whether gesture, naming, and strategic treatment improved the communication skills of 14 people with severe aphasia. METHOD: All participants received 15 hr of gesture and naming treatment (reported in a companion article [Marshall et al., 2012]). Half the group received a further 15 hr of strategic therapy, whereas the remaining 7 participants received no further input. The effects of therapy on communication were assessed with 2 novel measures. These measures required each participant to convey simple messages and narratives to his or her communication partner. In both assessments, a subset of the stimuli featured items that had been targets in gesture or naming treatment. RESULTS: Performance on the communication measures was stable over 2 baseline assessments but improved after gesture and naming treatment. Those participants who received additional strategic therapy made further gains on the message but not on the narrative task. Communication gains were not specific to the stimuli featuring trained items. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that gesture and naming treatments can benefit interactive communication. The additional benefits of strategic therapy were less clear-cut but did have an impact on the transmission of simple messages. Gains seem to reflect the development of general communication skills rather than the use of trained gestures and/or words.

Does mode of administration affect health-related quality-of-life outcomes after stroke?

Telephone interviews and postal surveys may be a resource-efficient way of assessing health-related quality-of-life post-stroke, if they produce data equivalent to face-to-face interviews. This study explored whether telephone interviews and postal surveys of the Stroke and Aphasia Quality of Life Scale (SAQOL-39g) yielded similar results to face-to-face interviews. Participants included people with aphasia and comprised two groups: group one (n =22) were 3-6 months post-stroke; group two (n =26) were ≥1 year post-stroke. They completed either a face-to-face and a telephone interview or a face-to-face interview and a postal survey of the SAQOL-39g. Response rates were higher for group two (87%) than for group one (72-77%). There were no significant differences between respondents and non-respondents on demographics, co-morbidities, stroke severity, or communication impairment. Concordance between face-to-face and telephone administrations (.90-.98) was excellent; and very good-excellent between face-to-face and postal administrations (.84-.96), although scores in postal administrations were lower (significant for psychosocial domain and overall SAQOL-39g in group two). These findings suggest that the SAQOL-39g yields similar results in different modes of administration. Researchers and clinicians may employ alternative modes, particularly in the longer term post-stroke, in order to reduce costs or facilitate clients with access difficulties.

Gesture and naming therapy for people with severe aphasia: a group study.

PURPOSE: In this study, the authors (a) investigated whether a group of people with severe aphasia could learn a vocabulary of pantomime gestures through therapy and (b) compared their learning of gestures with their learning of words. The authors also examined whether gesture therapy cued word production and whether naming therapy cued gestures. METHOD: Fourteen people with severe aphasia received 15 hr of gesture and naming treatments. Evaluations comprised repeated measures of gesture and word production, comparing treated and untreated items. RESULTS: Baseline measures were stable but improved significantly following therapy. Across the group, improvements in naming were greater than improvements in gesture. This trend was evident in most individuals' results, although 3 participants made better progress in gesture. Gains were item specific, and there was no evidence of cross-modality cueing. Items that received gesture therapy did not improve in naming, and items that received naming therapy did not improve in gesture. CONCLUSIONS: Results show that people with severe aphasia can respond to gesture and naming therapies. Given the unequal gains, naming may be a more productive therapy target than gesture for many (although not all) individuals with severe aphasia. The communicative benefits of therapy were not examined but are addressed in a follow-up article.