Wednesday 16 April 2014

An overview of the British Aphasiology Society's research update meeting 01-04-2014





Digital Technology and Aphasia

A couple of weeks ago I had the pleasure of attending the British Aphasiology Society (BAS) update meeting in Newcastle University. This comprised a series of 20 minute talks from academics, clinicians and technology experts from around the UK; the meeting lasted all day.

I hope to be able to summarise for readers the researchers' key points in their (often) early stages of research. I aim to do this in a way which does justice to what really was an exciting and informative day for Speech and Language Therapy, Aphasia, Research, and Technology.

Poster presentation

Lexi Johnson, supervised by Julie Morris & Fiona Menger,  Newcastle University - Undergraduate dissertation: Facilitating the use of technology with people with aphasia: what are the challenges for speech and language therapists?

Background: Speech and Language Therapists (SLTs) may use technology with people with aphasia (PWA) in a variety of ways; including therapy software, as alternative and augmentative communication, or to support participation, e.g. email or word processing. Research has explored some of the benefits and barriers for PWA, but the views and experiences of SLTs have had little attention. The study also aims to update older studies on similar topics due to the p 
Aims: The aims of this study are to explore:

1) How SLTs are using technology in their work with PWA
2) What roles concerning technology SLTs feel they should undertake
3) The barriers that restrict use of technology with PWA
4) Whether personal interest in technology affects opinions on these topics
Methods & Procedures: This investigation had two phases. The first used semi-structured interviews (N=4) to explore practising SLT's opinions about technology from a purposive sample. This data was used alongside literature to inform a survey, which formed the second phase. The survey gathered information on technology use, roles and barriers. Data was collected from 115 participants, including students, academic staff and SLTs.
Outcomes& Results: Therapists use technology as therapy software and to increase intensity of therapy more than they use it as AAC, to give homework or to facilitate participation. Most participants feel SLTs have a role in using technology but that some technical roles are better suited to a specialist technology service. Client’s suitability to use technology was the biggest barrier but work environment barriers such as the cost of devices and availability of trial products also play a role. Those who dislike technology are more likely to rate therapist technology skills as a barrier.
Conclusions: Technology is being used in the profession in a variety of ways, and most SLTs see the use of technology as part of their role. How SLTs make decisions on suitability to use technology is unknown, and this is worthy of further exploration. A more robust evidence base is needed in the case of many technological interventions in order to prove their effectiveness and to ensure that each client receives appropriate intervention.
 


1) Fiona Menger & colleagues, Newcastle University - IDEA Project: Inclusion in the digital economy for people with aphasia

Menger's talk highlighted the difficulties for people with aphasia (PWA) in accessing technology, she noted that PWA may be the people who are most in need of the social benefits of technology, but potentially the least able to access it. The majority of PWA are people who have had a stroke, and so are often (though not always) of an older generation. This generation has not been brought up with the internet and have barriers of their own to internet use. Menger's research focuses on trying to tease out the barriers PWA have in using technology, including the internet, phones, and TV.

Pilot project: how do people with aphasia use the internet?

Comparing a small sample of 12 people with aphasia (PWA), Menger's research suggests PWA tend to use the internet in broadly the same way as the rest of the general public (GP), with the exception that PWA require more support. Email, email attachments and video calls were listed as the internet functions most used by both the GP and PWA's

One exception to this was that only 33% of PWA used the internet to look up health related things, compared with the retired general public (70%).

All 12 participants wanted to improve their internet skills and most considered their aphasia a barrier to using the internet.

Current project: do PWA use the internet differently from matched population with no language impairment?

Currently Menger is collecting data: 20 people with aphasia and 20 who have had stroke but don’t have aphasia (matched). She aims to address the following questions:

  • What are barriers to internet use experienced by PWA who were internet users prior to stroke?

  • How do carers and SLTs view their role in supporting people with aphasia to use the internet?

  • Can intervention improve internet use for PWA?

2) Laoray Hunter & colleagues, NHS Tayside, Univeristy of Dundee - It’s not one thing: Interdisciplinary collaboration to promote digital technology use by people with aphasia

Hunter's talk discussed research on a multi-phase project supporting PWA to use digital technology, specifically, ipads. The participants were PWA who had previously received intervention from the trust and who had identified a need for support in using their iPads. All were members of the local speech-after-stroke group, Speakeasy. Hunter raised the important question of 'when do we fund the iPad as a communication aid?', though her talk does not address this.

Pilot projects: aimed to develop model for workshops for PWA to use iPads; create self-assessment tool for PWA to monitor their own progress and create a learning manual (workbook) so that the user can learn/use i-Pad independently

Service delivery model:
  • Workshops for 10 weeks (4 weeks with a break followed by 6 weeks).
  • 2 hour class with long break in the middle.
  • Class focused on how to use the iPad.
  • All workshops were done in university, which eliminated some of the Information Governance problems in accessing the internet; this highlighted the project design being far less feasible in an NHS setting.

Outcomes:

By the end of the intervention people were using their iPads to
  • Set calendar functions to remember appointments.
  • Access websites - by SLT adding widgets to homescreen, e.g. for radio.
  • Some people used screen shots for communication.
  • The user with smallest amount of speech started using voice messages.
  • Everybody increased their online shopping (SLTs not involved with this).
  • Everybody used more photographs for communication.

Questions raised/comments:

- Aim is to develop criteria that could possibly be used for commissioning: are some people more likely to respond to workshops/Ipads? e.g. it’s likely people will need a degree of executive functioning.
- Some questions around outcome measures in project to prove effectiveness of SLT intervention in helping people facilitate use of Ipad.
- Discussion on changing technologies.

3) Abi Roper, City University - Revealing effects of computer gesture therapy for users with severe aphasia: GEST

Previous research provides evidence that a higher dose of gesture therapy is more effective than low.
GEST is a computer gesture therapy tool designed for people with severe expressive aphasia.
Click here for a video showing how GEST works.

Project Aims
  • To assess effects of GEST (for gestures, and naming)
  • Do benefits transfer to interactive communication?
  • Explore candidacy for computer therapy
  • Explore user attitudes.

30 participants supported one hour a week by SLT, prognostic tests (Cognitive Linguistic Quick Test); expressive-receptive language (CAT) Limb praxis (not retested)
Repeated measures were taken on naming, gesture, in isolation and with familiar conversation partner, technology questionnaire (do you use this…) and confidence rating (how confident do you feel using this…)
Results (only 9 people tested so far)
Most people seemed to be using technology more often, time will tell significance.

Questions raised/comments:

Limb praxis not measured afterwards, audience member suggested that gesture therapy may be contributing to improved limb praxis, another volunteered that a different study had shown some improvement in limb praxis following gesture therapy but nothing significant (not cited).

     4)  Gennaro Imperatore, Strathclyde University - Developing an AAC mobile application for aphasic users

Described current AAC software as being too slow; he noted that in functional communication this can be frustrating for both the person communicating the sentence as well as the listener.
Imperatore’s aims were to use text entry techniques to improve AAC apps and specifically to reduce the amount of tasks for the user. The AAC system will do this in a similar way to the way in which search engines such as ‘Google’ work.
After originally attempting to download Wikipedia in its entirety to use as a corpora of data (!!); he limited subjects to four high frequency communication topics:
·         Food and drink (70 articles)
·         Music (70 articles)
·         Sports (70 articles)
·         Transport (70 articles)

Used ‘pointwise’ to determine relatedness of words depending on the frequency with which they occur in similar Wikipedia articles.
Word à[related word 1, related word 2, related word 3....... related word 50]

Questions raised/comments:

- MASK film script corpora using speech as different to text.
- Programme can’t learn from user at the moment; i.e. select likelihood of following word based on past selections by the user.
- Many people (not all) with aphasia have central semantic deficits and this would cause difficulty when faced with a screen of semantically related words.
- The above point could become a positive, should the AAC be designed as a therapy program for semantic impairment.
- There is a risk of ending up with the word you started off with (much like ‘synonyms’ in word document).
- Will add pictures to accompany text later on, also wants to deal with regular verb suffixes and irregular verbs.

     5) Faustina Hwang & Christos Salis, Reading and Newcastle University - Computer Skills Assessment Protocol for people who have had a stroke

Question: How can you tell if client will respond well to computer based assessment?

Pilot study 2010

Assessing computer access skills for people with aphasia:

Protocol

·         Background assessment interview: how has aphasia affected willingness and ability to use the computer?

·         Assessment of typing skills

·         Assessment of internet skills (including functional internet search: turning computer on, accessing BBC Weather for specific place e.g. Reading, then changing location to ‘oxford’, accessing and searching Google, turning computer off.

Participants

4 people aged 44; 57; 73 and 66.

3 participants had mild aphasia and one had moderate aphasia, with one participant also experiencing mild cognitive impairment.

Results so far, earlier tasks were easier and later tasks were difficult.

Questions raised/comments:

Should there be step-ups/step-downs to the task so we can learn from task how best to support people with the internet following stroke; to answer question ‘what does person need in order to use that technology.

Difficult to disentangle skills needed for complex tasks such as 'using a computer'.

Recognised potential for software to be used as therapy resource, as well as AAC, e.g. for semantic therapy.


6) Rachel McCrindle, University of Reading - Use of technology to support people with aphasia

Discussed two projects with the potential to support people with aphasia

CHIPP

A system comprising near field communication (NFC) chips in sticker form, approx 1”x1”. Each microchip can be programmed with individual information, and will activate when swiped with an android phone. The tags can be placed anywhere; in the examples given they tended to be stuck to objects around the house. The user would then swipe the tag from within a 5cm distance and it will perform its intended action.

Possibilities for people with aphasia or other communication impairments include: swiping an object, e.g. a kettle, and the phone saying name of object e.g. as a target word to practise, whilst encouraging generalisation into the home environment; swiping an object and the phone listing instructions on how to use that object; storing favourite channels on the television or website pages; having a reminder while leaving the house to e.g. ‘turn the iron off’.

Tags may be different colours, contain pictures and/or text. They can be bought very cheaply; for less than a pound; and in bulk approx. 20p. More than one function can be assigned to each chip and the chip will respond differently according to its function depending on the phone which is swiped. This means that many users can use the same chip; for example in a residential home a chip may be placed outside a dining hall and residents can scan their phone as they enter the room to be reminded what they ordered for food that morning.

This technology hasn’t been used on patients yet and is being designed on an android platform for ease of development; however developers would also look to develop it for the iPhone. This interesting blog gives more information on the technology.

Kinect

Royal Berkshire hospital OTs are currently using Xbox Kinect in therapy and are in the process of developing software to help people perform simple exercises with games. The Kinect, McCrindle explained, has great potential to be used in the speech and language therapy world e.g. using articulograms to guide real-life production of mouth positioning for a client with apraxia of speech: in addition the technology could then be used collect and track individual’s data to monitor progress, as well as collect many different people’s data to calculate specific norms. McCrindle also spoke of the technology’s potential for using speech recognition software; using words as targets for therapy.

7) Laura McCaine, Newcastle University - Computerised therapy for short term memory in Aphasia

Literature studies reveal that difficulty in comprehension of spoken sentences can stem from a deficit in a linguistic deficit and/or a short term memory deficit.

McCaine and colleagues are working on the hypothesis that treating auditory short term memory will improve understanding of spoken sentences.

Computerised delivery of therapy can reduce SLT variation of productions e.g. timing, and intonation and reduce the effect of human influence, e.g. lipreading.

Researchers at Newcastle University are developing an application, ‘MEMO’, which aims to improve short-term memory via a serial word recognition task presented in auditory form only. People with aphasia will be presented with lists of words and have to judge whether the sentences are the same or different; similar to PALPA 13.

E.g. the user will need to select either ‘same’ or ‘different’ after hearing the following set of words:

1a) Bee mug car
1b) Bee mug car

If they correctly identify ‘same’ then this will take them to the next dyad, if they get it incorrect then they have one more chance to try again.

2a) Bee mug car
2b) Bee car mug

Clinicians and users have worked together on the production of ‘MEMO’ from the start. The application can be used on a touch screen.

This app will allow for manipulations of:
  •  Number of exercises
  • Number of words per list
  • Order of words
  • Speed of word presentation
Stimuli and feedback are also customisable
Feedback shows the client in written and visual form (depicted by the character, Memo, climbing a mountain), the percentage of items they got correct, as well as the percentage they got correct on the first attempt.

8) Jane Marshall & colleagues, City University - Evaluating the effects of a virtual communication environment for people with aphasia (EVA)

I've tried to be objective up until this point, but I have to say at this point that this study blew me away.
Before you go any further, please take a minute to look at this webiste which will explain the EVA project far better than I ever could.
The project uses a virtual world (EVA park) in which people with aphasia can visit (virtually using a personal avatar) and meet up with others with aphasia. In addition, each PWA has a support worker who works with them 1:1; these support workers can embody other avatars and so assume different roles depending on what the person's goal is.

Research questions

Will access to a virtual communication environment:
  • Improve communication skills?
  • Improve people's confidence?
  • Reduce social isolation?
                            and
  • Will effects be maintained?
  • What are participant's thoughts on the project?

Evaluation Design

20 people with aphasia have unlimited access to EVA park for a five week period. During which there will be four 'live' periods: where a group of participants comes together and interact together virtually. In addition, each person will have daily sessions 'at' EVA with their support workers (during which time, other participants may also happen to be having sessions or be 'in' EVA park, offering further opportunities to communicate). Each individual will have personal goals and will be assessed pre and post therapy.
The participants in the study were on average slightly younger than an average person with stroke-acquired aphasia and tended to be fairly well educated.
The following assessments will be used:
The following experimental design was used to allow for comparison of PWA at stages 1 and 2


EVA provided a lot of opportunities for Role Play. Conversations that occured between participants were sometimes about things happening in EVA park (e.g. scandels related to current elections) as well as conversations about real life.

Aims
To recruit volunteers with aphasia to participate in for the program click here

Questions raised/comments:
The PWA met up with each other and support members once before the project started to design their avatars; this offered the opportunity for people to put a face to the avatar!

Thoughts need to go into how it can be rolled out on a bigger scale

Only have time logs at the minute for individuals in EVA park during the 1:1 sessions and 'live' periods. It would be interesting to find out the quality of exchange in peer interactions (when the support worker is not there and participants meet each other on a stroll in EVA park).


 
 


Conclusion


I hope this whistle-stop tour provided some insight into the wonderful research that is currently being conducted in and around technology use for people with Aphasia. It's an exciting time and I would like to thank all of the speakers and organisers for such a fantastic event. I for one cannot wait for the next BAS update meeting.



Any comments/suggests/amendments welcome :)

Monday 7 April 2014

Newcastle SLT journal club

This post is an update on the first Newcastle SLT journal club meeting, which was held last week in an as-informal-as-you-can-get pub setting. Eight students and Speech and Language Therapists attended and we received very positive feedback. We are aiming to hold the next group on/around Saturday 10th May and are expecting more members at this meeting; do sign up for the club and come along if you're interested in evidence based practice. We welcome all student and qualified health care professionals. Click here for our Facebook page.



Why are you here?


Members were asked what their reasons were for joining the club, they responded with:
  • to maintain an ability to critically appraise articles
  • belonging to a journal club will keep them motivated to stay up-to-date with the evidence: a few people acknowledged that although they regularly receive journals, specifically the International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, despite best intentions, they did not get around to reading the articles
  • opportunity for CPD
  • boosting the CV
  • networking with other SLTs in the area - recognised as important by both students and therapists
  • offering and receiving extended support from a group of like-minded professionals/students
  • to share knowledge and experiences of practice with others

The topic of the week was Communication Partner Training



Articles discussed: 


The following critical appraisal checklist was filled in by Lauren Davies 

Author/s Savundranayagam, M.Y. & Orange, J.B.
Year: 2014
Journal: IJLCD
Volume: 49(1)
Pages:49 - 59
Question
Evidence/comments
What are the research questions?
i.e. What are the researchers trying to find out? What are the aims of the intervention?
      1)      Determine effectiveness of strategies used to resolve communication  breakdowns
      2)      Examine whether caregivers’ ratings of strategy effectiveness were consistent with evidence from video-recorded conversations and with communication strategies deemed to be effective in the literature
What is the specific target client for this intervention?
i.e. Client diagnosis; age; details of expected level of current language skills; pre-requisites for intervention)

15 caregivers of people with Alzheimer’s dementia:

14 – spouses
1 – daughter

Different stages of dementia: (rated how?)


Early
Middle
Late
Participants
6
5
4
Conversations
11
10
7
Can this intervention be applied to different types of case?

Yes, e.g. aphasia, though stages early-middle-late don’t correspond with acute – chronic: not progressive so may yield v. different results as caregivers become more in-tune with conversation capabilities of people with aphasia (PWA).
How is the intervention carried out? How well specified is the intervention?
NB this may be in an appendix.
i.e. what is the therapy approach? Who delivers it and where? How often and how much is given? Is special equipment or materials needed? What is the hierarchy of difficulty, including cues, step up/down, progression? What feedback was given to client?










Therapy approach
       -       Multi-centre investigation that used a cross-sectional design         
      -       Partners fill in PCI-DAT form (created by second author) prior to recording, this lists 22 repair strategies e.g. ‘ask for clarification’.
       -       They then fill in Likert Scale (1 = not helpful; 2= very helpful) for each.
      -         2 conversations (lunch and evening) recorded for each participant (bar two, where it was only possibly to record one conversation)
      -       Family-style meal time set up can lead to double communication compared with if people with dementia are sat alone (Altus et al, 2002).
     -       Conversations transcribed orthographically and segmented into utterances (who did this?)
     -       TSR was used; all utterances made by communication partners were coded as either 1-trouble source, 2-repair initiator and 3-4epair.

Agent of therapy/location/dosage/frequency

"Same methodology as used by Orange (1996)" – not particularly helpful 

13 dyads recorded x 2 (lunch and dinner)
2 dyads recorded x 1 (1 meal time)

agent unknown
location = nursing home

Materials/equipment needed
Recording equipment
PCI-DAT containing 22 communication strategies used to overcome conversation difficulties

Hierarchy of difficulty
None- doesn’t describe what conversations were about; this may have influence on success of repair strategies
Feedback to client
none
Other comments
How were baseline performance and outcomes measured?








  • No baseline just one or two conversations, topics unknown

    1) Calculated total occurrences of repair initiators and strategies, coded for: 1-most successful, 2-successful or ineffective.
      
    2) outcomes measured in terms of matchedness of appraisals with the literature PCI-DAT
  • Inter rater reliability 2 raters coded for 4 of 28 randomly selected transcripts:

·     0.83 trouble source
·     1 repair initiators
·      0.75 repairs (no comment on this although significant)
·      0.86 resolution type
·     0.87 strategies coded using PCI-DAT
  •        Didn’t compare with normative data – what % of repair initiator, etc, is typical in conversation?

What is the evidence that the intervention worked (or did not work)?
i.e. outcome for treated/non-treated items; for control measures etc; evidence from statistical analyses
N/A
What are the answers to the research questions?
i.e. what do the authors say about the results of their study? Were the original questions answered/aims achieved?










     1)      Early stage – communication partners use a wider variety of communication strategies than in other phases which resulted in successful resolution of communication breakdowns.
Strategy of asking to repeat used often but frequently unsuccessful in all 3 groups, possibly because they were often non-specific e.g. ‘huh’, ‘eh’. This suggests need for training on specificity for clarification.  
       2)      Early stage – most matched for ‘effective’:  over and above matched appraisals being by chance alone
'Complete task myself’ often viewed as effective; training around this as although it can increase expediency of task it can increase risk of disengagement.
Pretend to understand matched (accurately) as being moderately helpful in later stages.
Most mismatched appraisals were for effective communication strategies that were appraised as ineffective. Caregivers tended to rate repair initiators as ineffective: asking for clarification rated as unhelpful in all stages, esp later.
  •  Different stages reflect different needs; with disease progression, complexity of communication problems increases -> caregivers not knowing which strategies work best, despite having increased experience and exposure to problems.


Other comments
e.g. What level of evidence is the study? Is it good in terms of experimental design?  do authors suggest modifications/ changes?










  •       No comments on whether literature evidence matched with observed evidence of certain repair strategies being effective
  •       Would be useful to do case studies on same people over time to see if their views change; is this really an accurate representation of people’s perceptions of RIs during different stages: i.e. people in late-group may have always had those views.
  •        PCI-DAT given to caregivers prior to the first conversation; will this have primed them for what authors looking out for? And affect the results?
  •         Limited by small sample size.
  •         Primarily spouses.
  •       For the one example where a daughter was the conversation partner, rather than the spouse, the patient's stage of Alzheimer's was not given.

Would you use this intervention with your client?
Justify with reference to the information you know about your client

Possibly; mismatched appraisals provide targeted opportunities for new learning among caregivers; could use conversation analysis along with rating scales to establish any gaps in knowledge or difficulties with communication and target these in therapy.

This study has made me more aware of the importance for ongoing education of partners in progressive diseases.




The following critical appraisal checklist was filled in by Yvonne Murray (MSc)

Author/s Simmons-Mackie, Raymer, Armstrong, Holland & Cherney
Year 2010
Journal Arch Phys Med Rehab
Volume 91
Pages 1814 - 1836
Question
Evidence/comments
What are the research questions?
i.e. What are the researchers trying to find out? What are the aims of the intervention?
There are three research questions:
1.       In persons with acute aphasia, what is the influence of communication partner training on measures of the following:
a) Language impairment?
b) Communication activity/participation?
c) Psychosocial adjustment/identity?
d) Quality of life?
What intervention outcomes are maintained?
2.       In persons with chronic aphasia, what is the influence of communication partner training on measures of the following:
a) Language impairment?
b) Communication activity/participation?
c) Psychosocial adjustment/identity?
d) Quality of life?
What intervention outcomes are maintained?
3.       For communication partners of people with aphasia, what is the influence of communication partner training on measures of the following:
a) Communication activity/participation?
b) Psychosocial adjustment/identity?
c) Quality of life?
What intervention outcomes are maintained?
What is the specific target client for this intervention?
i.e. Client diagnosis; age; details of expected level of current language skills; pre-requisites for intervention)
Huge range of clients used across the 31 studies, making generalisation difficult:
-       Huge range of aetiologies, including right-hemisphere involvement and cognitive impairment
-       Cut off point for acute/chronic aphasia boundary was set at 4 months post onset by the authors of this review, no justification of this was given (why not 6 months post onset as per Basso?)
-       Communication partner details ( including age and educational level ) were rarely described and level of familiarity with the person with aphasia ranged from stranger to spouse
Can this intervention be applied to different types of case?
This type of intervention can be used with individuals with aphasia along with their families/caregivers or with communication partners only.
 The findings of this review indicate that the most cost effective approach would be to train people working in healthcare settings to enable them to communicate more effectively  with a range of people with aphasia
How is the intervention carried out? How well specified is the intervention?
NB this may be in an appendix.
i.e. what is the therapy approach? Who delivers it and where? How often and how much is given? Is special equipment or materials needed? What is the hierarchy of difficulty, including cues, step up/down, progression? What feedback was given to client?
Therapy approach
3 therapy approaches were used across the 31 studies:
-Communication skills training
-Educational approach (teaching knowledge of aphasia)
-Counselling approach (addressing depression, isolation etc.
Agent of therapy/location/dosage/frequency
Varied widely across the studies, not clear how detailed individual studies were in this regard, but it was reported that :
-       Group, individual, dyad and workshop approaches were all used
-       Dosage/frequency ranged from 4 to 35 hours of therapy in total, usually taking place in 1 to 2 hour sessions, with the longest block of intervention lasting 20 weeks.
-       Over half the studies involved training the person with aphasia and a conversation partner (remainder focused on communication partners only)
-       Location – mostly clinical settings, but some at home
Materials/equipment needed
Not specified
Hierarchy of difficulty
Varied according to study, not detailed in this review
Feedback to client
Varied according to study, not detailed in this review
Other comments
Authors commented that these details were often underspecified in the studies examined, making replication difficult
How were baseline performance and outcomes measured?
Again outcomes measures varied widely across studies, and not all targeted the same behaviour.
-       For language impairment (LI), standardised assessments (e.g. the Western Aphasia Battery) often used.
-       Very few measures of activity/participation
-       Quality of life (QoL) not assessed and little consistency for measures of psychosocial improvement.
-       Authors point out that many studies employed ‘scatter shot’ approach, measuring variety of things in the hope that something would have improved
What is the evidence that the intervention worked (or did not work)?
i.e. outcome for treated/non-treated items; for control measures etc; evidence from statistical analyses
(a)    LI – 7/31 studies indicated improvement in this area
(b)   Communication activity/participation - 21/31 studies measured this, and 19/21 reported positive outcomes
(c)    Psychosocial adjustment - 10/31 studies measured this, and 9/10 reported positive outcomes
(d)   QoL – Not measured
What are the answers to the research questions?
i.e. what do the authors say about the results of their study? Were the original questions answered/aims achieved?
Question 1: There was insufficient evidence to say whether communication partner training was effective for people with ‘acute’ aphasia in any of the four domains examined.
Question 2: Communication partner training is PROBABLY effective in improving communication activity and participation in conversation with a trained partner in those with chronic aphasia. Insufficient evidence to comment on language impairment, psychosocial adjustment or quality of life.
Question 3: Communication partner training is effective in improving communication activity and participation in conversation partners of those with aphasia. Insufficient evidence to comment on psychosocial adjustment or quality of life. (Both familiar and unfamiliar communication partners improved)
Other comments
e.g. What level of evidence is the study? Is it good in terms of experimental design?  do authors suggest modifications/ changes?
The variety and range across the 31 studies examined in this review in terms of:
-       Type of therapy approach
-       Candidates and participants
-       Outcome measures used
-       Service Delivery
Make comparison (and subsequently, clinical guideline recommendation) difficult.
Authors used ‘AAN’ classification system for selection of studies for inclusion in this review (to assess how empirical they are) but acknowledge that this may not be the best approach for the study of aphasia, which may be more suited to qualitative approaches.
Would you use this intervention with your client?
Justify with reference to the information you know about your client
This article provides support for the use of communication partner training with staff in healthcare settings as a cost effective tool in improving communication with people with aphasia.
This article does NOT provide guidelines on what is the best type of communication partner training nor who are the best candidates for it (in terms of people with aphasia and their families) and advocates use of clinical judgement in these matters.

The template used is the Critical Appraisal Checklist, created by Helen Stringer PhD, Newcastle University


Discussions


There was an interesting discussion around evidence use; people were keen for the evidence they engage with to be accessible and applicable to practice. It can be difficult to read a systematic review and take away from it how to then go forth and use it in practice. The best way in which people can do this is to be directed to the best available evidence from the review/RCT, and then read the more detailed case studies identified as comprising the best evidence; replicating these in practice. As one of the club leaders, what I can take away from this is; perhaps it will be more useful to review in-depth studies already identified as 'good evidence'. Having said that, it is still important that as clinicians we remain aware of how to critically appraise bad evidence and bigger studies should we come across them in 'the real world'.

The Newcastle University critical appraisal checklist (shown above) was well received by members. The alternative CASP checklist was also mentioned but criticised for lack of comparative 'SLT-centredness'; i.e. it did not answer questions related to how SLTs can use the study in practice. This being said, there are numerous CASP checklists tailored for particular studies, e.g. RCTs/systematic reviews, it is therefore worth being aware of them.



Moving forward


We have decided as a group that the next meeting will have the following structure:
  • Everybody will read one article and discuss this as a group


in addition
  • 50% of members will read an article and fill in the Newcastle Critical Appraisal Checklist
  • 50% of members will read another article and fill in the Newcastle Critical Appraisal Checklist
  • Both groups will feedback to each other in the meeting


It is hoped that this structure will present the group with the opportunity for natural, informal discussion; give everybody the chance to learn about an article they haven't read; and become used to analysing articles in a structured way agreed to be useful by all members.

The next meeting will be on or around Saturday 10th May (to be confirmed).


The following subjects were identified as areas of further research interest:

  
Topic for next meeting
  • AAC for adults and children - specifically perceptions and expectations around AAC
    (one student is writing her extended case report on AAC use)
  • Apraxia of speech and Dysarthria; what are the alternatives to non-speech exercises? (one student has an 'adult' placement coming up; 3 people identified this as area of interest/uncertainty)

Topics for future meetings
  • Education and SLT service provision for post-16
  • Dysfluency - specifically the social impact and social anxiety; how outcome measures are recorded
  • Neurodegenerative disorders-management and ethics
  • Traumatic Brain Injury and the less visible pragmatic communication difficulties that follow
  • Autism Spectrum Disorder
  • Child speech and language
 As you can see; we have enough to keep us going for a while!