No abstract

Background: Gesture frequently accompanies speech in healthy speakers. For many individuals with aphasia, gestures are a target of speech-language pathology intervention, either as an alternative form of communication or as a facilitative device for language restoration. The patterns of gesture production for people with aphasia and the participant variables that predict these patterns remain unclear. Aims: We aimed to examine gesture production during conversational discourse in a large sample of individuals with aphasia. We used a detailed gesture coding system to determine patterns of gesture production associated with specific aphasia types and severities. Methods & Procedures:We analysed conversation samples from AphasiaBank, gathered from 46 people with post-stroke aphasia and 10 healthy matched controls all of whom had gestured at least once during a story re-tell task. Twelve gesture types were coded. Descriptive statistics were used to describe the patterns of gesture production. Possible significant differences in production patterns according to aphasia type and severity were examined with a series of analyses of variance (ANOVA) statistics, and multiple regression analysis was used to examine these potential predictors of gesture production patterns. Outcomes & Results: Individuals with aphasia gestured significantly more frequently than healthy controls. Aphasia type and severity impacted significantly on gesture type in specific identified patterns detailed here, especially on the production of meaning-laden gestures. Conclusions: These patterns suggest the opportunity for gestures as targets of aphasia therapy. Aphasia fluency accounted for a greater degree of data variability than aphasia severity or naming skills. More work is required to delineate predictive factors.

No abstract

Purpose The aim of the study was to investigate the effectiveness of social communication skills training (TBIconneCT) for people with traumatic brain injury (TBI) and their communication partners, delivered in-person or via telehealth, on quality of conversations. Method This study is a clinical trial, including an in-person intervention group ( n = 17), a telehealth intervention group ( n = 19), and a historical control group ( n = 15). Participants were adults at least 6 months post moderate-to-severe TBI with social communication skills deficits and their usual communication partners. Participants completed a casual and purposeful conversation task at pre-intervention, postintervention, and a follow-up assessment. A blinded assessor evaluated conversations using the Adapted Measure of Participation in Conversation and the Adapted Measure of Support in Conversation. Treatment effects were examined by comparing groups on change in ratings between pre- and posttraining. Maintenance of effects was examined using change between posttraining and follow-up assessment. The trial protocol was registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12615001024538). Results Trained participants with TBI had significant improvements in participation in casual conversation compared to controls. Trained communication partners also had significant improvements compared to controls on ratings of support in casual conversations. However, treatment effects were not maintained at follow-up for two of eight measures. Comparisons between outcomes of in-person and telehealth groups found negligible to small effect sizes for six of eight measures. Conclusions The findings reinforce previous studies demonstrating the efficacy of communication partner training after TBI. Telehealth delivery produced similar outcomes to in-person delivery.

No abstract

Introduction Communication skills training for people with traumatic brain injury (TBI) and their carers is recommended best practice. Delivery via telehealth could improve access to this training. This paper focuses on the acceptability of telehealth delivery of communication skills training. Methods A mixed-methods investigation of acceptability of telehealth to people with TBI and their carers was incorporated into a clinical trial. Thirty-six people with TBI (23 metropolitan and 13 regional) and their carers were recruited. Metropolitan participants were randomly allocated to telehealth or in-person intervention at a 1:3 ratio. Regional participants were allocated to telehealth. Telehealth and in-person participants were compared on retention, time to complete the programme, home practice completion and therapeutic alliance ratings. Participants completed semi-structured interviews regarding their views on telehealth, which were analysed using thematic analysis. Results There were no significant differences between telehealth and in-person participants in retention rate, time to complete the programme, degree of home practice completion or therapeutic alliance ratings. Three themes were identified: ‘telehealth delivery opens a window for access to rehabilitation in the context of my daily life’, ‘in-person delivery offers rehabilitation based on natural human interaction’ and ‘weighing telehealth against in-person delivery’. Discussion Participants found telehealth delivery acceptable, as indicated by the similarity between groups in the quantitative process measures, and as reported in interviews. Some reported a preference for in-person delivery if there had been a choice of delivery mode. Participants described characteristics of the two delivery modes which were relevant to their attitudes towards telehealth.

No abstract

Background Training conversation partners of people with aphasia who use facilitative communication strategies is one method that can improve access to healthcare for people with aphasia. However, the efficacy of communication partner training (CPT) has been investigated almost exclusively in the context of face‐to‐face (F2F) delivery. Online training may offer more cost‐effective and accessible options to a wider range of conversation partners, including student healthcare professionals. Aims To conduct a pilot randomized controlled trial with student healthcare professionals comparing (1) an online aphasia CPT program, (2) a F2F CPT program and (3) no program (control group) on outcomes relating to attitudes and knowledge of aphasia. Methods & Procedures A 45‐min introductory aphasia CPT program was developed using the theories and techniques of Supported Conversations for Adults with Aphasia (SCA)™. A total of 30 first‐year undergraduates studying occupational therapy at The University of Sydney were randomly allocated to one of three conditions: online CPT delivery, F2F delivery or delayed training control (no program). Outcomes measures included pre‐post‐testing with the Aphasia Attitudes, Strategies and Knowledge (AASK) survey. Outcomes & Results A significant difference existed for the AASK survey pre‐post‐change scores between the online, F2F and control groups (χ2(2) = 20.038, p = 0.000). Post‐hoc analysis revealed that, compared with the control (Ctrl) group, participants in both the online and F2F groups had significantly higher knowledge of aphasia (Online versus Ctrl: p = 0.000; F2F versus control: p = 0.002), knowledge of facilitative strategies (Online versus Ctrl: p = 0.000; F2F versus Ctrl: p = 0.002), and positive attitudes towards aphasia (Online versus Ctrl: p = 0.031; F2F versus Ctrl: p = 0.032). No significant difference was observed between the online and F2F groups for the Total or any subtotals (p = 1.000). Conclusions and Implications The results from this pilot randomized controlled trial indicate that online delivery of the 45‐min introductory CPT is equally as efficacious as F2F delivery, and thus may be a viable mode of delivery for future aphasia CPT programs. These pilot results pave the way for a larger study that will comprehensively evaluate the efficacy of an online aphasia CPT program for improving attitudes, knowledge and skills in a broad range of student healthcare professionals.