Purpose Reading comprehension can change following acquired brain injury (ABI), impacting independence and participation. This review aims to identify and evaluate the interventions used for rehabilitation of discourse level reading in adults with ABI. Methods A systematic review was conducted of published journal articles. Methodological quality of studies was reviewed using formal and informal rating scales. Inclusion criteria involved adults with non-progressive ABI who experienced discourse level reading deficits related to aphasia or cognitive-communication disorders. Results A total of 23 studies were identified; these included randomized controlled trials, cohort and case studies. Six different types of reading interventions were found, overall results of these interventions were mixed. Reading deficits were reportedly related to language (aphasia) and/or cognitive deficits, with assessment processes varying. Questions arose regarding comparability of assessment methods and diagnostic issues across the studies. Conclusions Interventions for discourse level reading comprehension can make positive changes to reading function. However, no intervention was identified as a gold standard. A trend toward strategy-based reading was found, with these offering a potential for (comparatively) cost-effective lower-dosage reading treatments with positive-trend results. Cognitive and language features should be considered for assessment and intervention planning for discourse reading in ABI. Implications for Rehabilitation Six different types of discourse reading comprehension interventions for people with ABI were identified, with mixed evidence for each intervention. Clinicians need to consider both the linguistic and cognitive features of reading for assessment and intervention planning for discourse level reading. There is a research trend toward strategy-based reading interventions, which use a lower treatment dosage.

BackgroundRecent initiatives within an Australia public healthcare service have seen a focus on increasing the research capacity of their workforce. One of the key initiatives involves encouraging clinicians to be research generators rather than solely research consumers. As a result, baseline data of current research capacity are essential to determine whether initiatives encouraging clinicians to undertake research have been effective. Speech pathologists have previously been shown to be interested in conducting research within their clinical role; therefore they are well positioned to benefit from such initiatives. The present study examined the current research interest, confidence and experience of speech language pathologists (SLPs) in a public healthcare workforce, as well as factors that predicted clinician research engagement.MethodsData were collected via an online survey emailed to an estimated 330 SLPs working within Queensland, Australia. The survey consisted of 30 questions relating to current levels of interest, confidence and experience performing specific research tasks, as well as how frequently SLPs had performed these tasks in the last 5 years.ResultsAlthough 158 SLPs responded to the survey, complete data were available for only 137. Respondents were more confident and experienced with basic research tasks (e.g., finding literature) and less confident and experienced with complex research tasks (e.g., analysing and interpreting results, publishing results). For most tasks, SLPs displayed higher levels of interest in the task than confidence and experience. Research engagement was predicted by highest qualification obtained, current job classification level and overall interest in research.ConclusionsRespondents generally reported levels of interest in research higher than their confidence and experience, with many respondents reporting limited experience in most research tasks. Therefore SLPs have potential to benefit from research capacity building activities to increase their research skills in order to meet organisational research engagement objectives. However, these findings must be interpreted with the caveats that a relatively low response rate occurred and participants were recruited from a single state-wide health service, and therefore may not be representative of the wider SLP workforce.