Dataset Information

Speech and language therapy for aphasia following stroke.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Aphasia is an acquired language impairment following brain damage that affects some or all language modalities: expression and understanding of speech, reading, and writing. Approximately one third of people who have a stroke experience aphasia.

Objectives

To assess the effects of speech and language therapy (SLT) for aphasia following stroke.

Search methods

We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (last searched 9 September 2015), CENTRAL (2015, Issue 5) and other Cochrane Library Databases (CDSR, DARE, HTA, to 22 September 2015), MEDLINE (1946 to September 2015), EMBASE (1980 to September 2015), CINAHL (1982 to September 2015), AMED (1985 to September 2015), LLBA (1973 to September 2015), and SpeechBITE (2008 to September 2015). We also searched major trials registers for ongoing trials including ClinicalTrials.gov (to 21 September 2015), the Stroke Trials Registry (to 21 September 2015), Current Controlled Trials (to 22 September 2015), and WHO ICTRP (to 22 September 2015). In an effort to identify further published, unpublished, and ongoing trials we also handsearched the International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders (1969 to 2005) and reference lists of relevant articles, and we contacted academic institutions and other researchers. There were no language restrictions.

Selection criteria

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing SLT (a formal intervention that aims to improve language and communication abilities, activity and participation) versus no SLT; social support or stimulation (an intervention that provides social support and communication stimulation but does not include targeted therapeutic interventions); or another SLT intervention (differing in duration, intensity, frequency, intervention methodology or theoretical approach).

Data collection and analysis

We independently extracted the data and assessed the quality of included trials. We sought missing data from investigators.

Main results

We included 57 RCTs (74 randomised comparisons) involving 3002 participants in this review (some appearing in more than one comparison). Twenty-seven randomised comparisons (1620 participants) assessed SLT versus no SLT; SLT resulted in clinically and statistically significant benefits to patients' functional communication (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.06 to 0.49, P = 0.01), reading, writing, and expressive language, but (based on smaller numbers) benefits were not evident at follow-up. Nine randomised comparisons (447 participants) assessed SLT with social support and stimulation; meta-analyses found no evidence of a difference in functional communication, but more participants withdrew from social support interventions than SLT. Thirty-eight randomised comparisons (1242 participants) assessed two approaches to SLT. Functional communication was significantly better in people with aphasia that received therapy at a high intensity, high dose, or over a long duration compared to those that received therapy at a lower intensity, lower dose, or over a shorter period of time. The benefits of a high intensity or a high dose of SLT were confounded by a significantly higher dropout rate in these intervention groups. Generally, trials randomised small numbers of participants across a range of characteristics (age, time since stroke, and severity profiles), interventions, and outcomes.

Authors' conclusions

Our review provides evidence of the effectiveness of SLT for people with aphasia following stroke in terms of improved functional communication, reading, writing, and expressive language compared with no therapy. There is some indication that therapy at high intensity, high dose or over a longer period may be beneficial. HIgh-intensity and high dose interventions may not be acceptable to all.

SUBMITTER: Brady MC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8078645 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Speech and language therapy provision for aphasia (a language disorder) post stroke has been studied over time through surveys completed by speech and language therapists. This paper revisits provision based on what was received by 278 patients in 21 UK speech and language therapy departments in 2014-2016. AIMS:To explore the speech and language therapy received by community dwelling people with post stroke aphasia in the UK. METHODS AND PROCEDURES:A quantitative content analysis was conducted by two speech and language therapist researchers. Therapy goals recorded were coded into categories and subcategories. Descriptive statistics were used to identify the frequency with which goal categories were targeted, average therapy time received, length and frequency of therapy sessions, personnel involved and mode of delivery. OUTCOMES AND RESULTS:Forty-five percent of participants were in receipt of therapy in the three month window observed. Six goal categories were identified. Rehabilitation was the most frequent (60%) followed by enabling (17.2%), review (4.3%), assessment (3.6%), supportive (3.5%) and activity to support therapy (2.8%). The median amount of therapy received in three months was 6.3 hours at an average of one 60-minute session every two weeks. Seventy-seven percent of therapy sessions were delivered by qualified speech and language therapists and 23% by assistants. Ninety percent of sessions were one to one, face to face sessions whilst 9.5% were group sessions. DISCUSSION:In line with previous reports, speech and language therapy for community dwelling stroke survivors with aphasia is restricted. Rehabilitation is a large focus of therapy but the intensity and dose with which it is provided is substantially lower than that required for an effective outcome. Despite this, one to one face to face therapy is favoured. More efficient methods to support more therapeutic doses of therapy are not commonly used in routine clinical services.

Project description:ObjectiveThis study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of combined scalp acupuncture therapy with speech and language therapy for patients with Broca's aphasia after stroke.DesignA within-trial cost-effectiveness analysis.SettingsCommunity health centres.SubjectsA total of 203 participants with Broca's aphasia after stroke who had been randomly assigned to receive scalp acupuncture with speech and language therapy (intervention) or speech and language therapy alone (control).InterventionBoth groups underwent speech and language therapy (30 min per day, 5 days a week, for 4 weeks), while the intervention group simultaneously received scalp acupuncture.Primary outcomesAll outcomes were collected at baseline, and after the 4-week intervention and 12-week follow-up. Cost-effectiveness measures included the Chinese Rehabilitation Research Center Standard Aphasia Examination (CRRCAE) and Boston Diagnostic Aphasia Examination (BDAE). Cost-utility was evaluated using quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were expressed, and sensitivity analysis was conducted.ResultsThe total cost to deliver the intervention was €4001.72, whereas it was €4323.57 for the control group. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios showed that the intervention was cost-effective (€495.1 per BDAE grade gained; €1.8 per CRRCAE score gained; €4597.1 per QALYs gained) relative to the control over the 12 weeks. The intervention had a 56.4% probability of being cost-effective at the ¥50 696 (€6905.87) Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita threshold. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the results.ConclusionsCompared with speech and language therapy alone, the addition of scalp acupuncture was cost-effective in Chinese communities. As the costs of acupuncture services in China are likely to differ from other countries, these results should be carefully interpreted and remain to be confirmed in other populations.Trial registration numberChiCTR-TRC-13003703.

Project description:BackgroundMobile app-based therapies are increasingly being employed by speech-language pathologists in the rehabilitation of people with aphasia as adjuncts or substitutes for traditional in-person therapy approaches. These apps can increase the intensity of treatment and have resulted in meaningful outcomes across several domains.ObjectiveVoiceAdapt is a mobile therapy app designed with user and stakeholder feedback within a user-centered design framework. VoiceAdapt uses two evidence-based lexical retrieval treatments to help people with aphasia in improving their naming abilities through interactions with the app. The purpose of the randomized controlled trial (RCT) proposed here is to examine the feasibility and clinical efficacy of training with VoiceAdapt on the language and communication outcomes of people with aphasia.MethodsA multicenter RCT is being conducted at two locations within Canada. A total of 80 people with aphasia will be recruited to participate in a two-arm, waitlist-controlled, crossover group RCT. After baseline assessment, participants will be randomized into an intervention group or a waitlist control group. The intervention group participants will engage in 5 weeks of training with the app, followed by posttreatment and follow-up assessments after an additional 5 weeks. Those in the waitlist control group will have no training for 5 weeks; this is followed by pretreatment assessment, training for 5 weeks, and posttreatment assessment. All trial procedures are being conducted remotely given the COVID-19 pandemic.ResultsRecruitment of participants started in September 2020, and the study is expected to be completed by March 2022. Publication of results is expected within 6 months of study completion.ConclusionsThe results of the RCT will provide information on evidence-based practice using technology-based solutions to treat aphasia. If positive results are obtained from this RCT, the VoiceAdapt app can be recommended as an efficacious means of improving lexical retrieval and communicative functioning in people with aphasia in an easily accessible and a cost-effective manner. Moreover, the implementation of this RCT through remote assessment and delivery can provide information to therapists on telerehabilitation practices and monitoring of app-based home therapy programs.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT04108364; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04108364.International registered report identifier (irrid)DERR1-10.2196/30621.

Project description:Background: Post-stroke aphasia is a chronic condition that impacts people's daily functioning and communication for many years after a stroke. Even though these individuals require sustained rehabilitation, they face extra burdens to access care due to shortages in qualified clinicians, insurance limitations and geographic access. There is a need to research alternative means to access intervention remotely, such as in the case of this study using a digital therapeutic. Objective: To assess the feasibility and clinical efficacy of a virtual speech, language, and cognitive digital therapeutic for individuals with post-stroke aphasia relative to standard of care. Methods: Thirty two participants completed the study (experimental: average age 59.8 years, 7 female, 10 male, average education: 15.8 years, time post-stroke: 53 months, 15 right handed, 2 left handed; control: average age 64.2 years, 7 female, 8 male, average education: 15.3 years, time post-stroke: 36.1 months, 14 right handed, 1 left handed). Patients in the experimental group received 10 weeks of treatment using a digital therapeutic, Constant Therapy-Research (CT-R), for speech, language, and cognitive therapy, which provides evidence-based, targeted therapy with immediate feedback for users that adjusts therapy difficulty based on their performance. Patients in the control group completed standard of care (SOC) speech-language pathology workbook pages. Results: This study provides Class II evidence that with the starting baseline WAB-AQ score, adjusted by -0.69 for every year of age, and by 0.122 for every month since stroke, participants in the CT-R group had WAB-AQ scores 6.43 higher than the workbook group at the end of treatment. Additionally, secondary outcome measures included the WAB-Language Quotient, WAB-Cognitive Quotient, Brief Test of Adult Cognition by Telephone (BTACT), and Stroke and Aphasia Quality of Life Scale 39 (SAQOL-39), with significant changes in BTACT verbal fluency subtest and the SAQOL-39 communication and energy scores for both groups. Conclusions: Overall, this study demonstrates the feasibility of a fully virtual trial for patients with post-stroke aphasia, especially given the ongoing COVID19 pandemic, as well as a safe, tolerable, and efficacious digital therapeutic for language/cognitive rehabilitation. Clinical Trial Registration: www.ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT04488029.