Speech pathology services for people with aphasia: what is the current practice in Singapore?

Guo, Yiting Emily; Togher, Leanne; Power, Emma

doi:10.3109/09638288.2013.804597

Cited by 38 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 55 publications

(71 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The high ratings of knowledge about and confidence in adopting functional and social-life participation approaches of aphasia rehabilitation as well as principles of neuroplasticity reported by clinicians in Hong Kong were similar to reports in Australia [29] and Singapore [30]. This suggests Speech-language pathologists' considerations of life participation under the WHO-ICF model, despite the lack of comprehensiveness in assessment procedures.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 63%

Clinician Survey on Speech Pathology Services for People with Aphasia in Hong Kong

Kong¹,

Tse²

2018

Clin Arch Commun Disord

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study aims to investigate aphasia practices by speech-language pathologists working with clients suffering from acquired neurogenic communication disorders through an online survey. Questions pertaining to content and intensity of aphasia management, service adequacy, and barriers to effective service provision to persons with aphasia were asked to understand the current service-provision situation in Hong Kong. A web-based questionnaire containing 38 questions was electronically distributed to speech-language pathologists in Hong Kong. A total of 41 respondents (equivalent to about 5% of the body of clinicians) completed and returned the survey. Compared to recommendations in existing best practice guidelines of aphasia from western countries, the results indicated that intensity and frequency of current aphasia services in Hong Kong fell short of expectations. Major challenges perceived by speech-language pathologists that contributed to dissatisfaction of aphasia service included limited manpower, resources, funding, and accessibility. It was also found that barriers to effective services could be related to clinicians' restricted adoption of intervention approaches, lack of active involvement of related healthcare professionals, and insufficient effort of referring persons with aphasia to support or self-help groups. Finally, factors to consider in order to improve existing aphasia management were discussed.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 63%

Clinician Survey on Speech Pathology Services for People with Aphasia in Hong Kong

Kong¹,

Tse²

2018

Clin Arch Commun Disord

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In clinical practice, standardized test batteries, such as the WAB-R 28 and the Boston Naming Test, 44 are the most common assessment tools used for evaluating severity and type of aphasia. [45][46][47][48] We are aware that such test batteries are constructed with little consideration of selective impairments of word classes in PWA's discourse processing. Therefore, multiple core lexicon measures by word class can provide a more complete understanding of PWA's specific lexical impairments in discourse, which will lead to clearer rationale for diagnosis and intervention plans.…”

Section: Clinical Use and Implications Of Core Lexicon Measuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Tutorial on Core Lexicon: Development, Use, and Application

Kim

Wright

2019

Semin Speech Lang

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Evidence suggests that discourse-level assessment in aphasia should be implemented within clinical settings. However, existing discourse measures that are time and labor intensive in process prevent speech-language pathologists from applying such measures to their clinical practices. This article provides an overview of a lexicon-based analysis (core lexicon measure) that recently was developed and investigated for clinical usability. A new approach to core lexicon measures provides a simple scoring method with short instructions, which may be practical and time efficient for assessment and management of persons with aphasia. The article concludes with suggestions for clinical application and implementation.

show abstract

“…Clinicians are frustrated by the lack of strong evidence to support aphasia rehabilitation practices (Guo, Togher, & Power, 2014;Rose, Ferguson, Power, Togher, & Worrall, 2014). Clear evidence to guide clinicians in the choice of the aphasia treatments is lacking (Brady, Kelly, Godwin, & Enderby, 2012).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Which treatment outcomes are most important to aphasia clinicians and managers? An international e-Delphi consensus study

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Clinicians have expressed frustration at the lack of strong evidence for aphasia treatments. Inconsistent outcome measurement practices across treatment trials have negatively impacted the quality and strength of evidence for aphasia interventions. Core Outcome Sets (COSs; minimum sets of outcomes/outcome measures) are increasingly being used to maximise the quality, relevancy, transparency, and efficiency of health treatment research. The current study is the third in a trilogy of stakeholder perspectives to inform the development of a COS for aphasia treatment research. Aim: To identify essential aphasia treatment outcomes from the perspective of an international sample of clinicians and managers working in aphasia rehabilitation. Methods and Procedures: A three-round e-Delphi exercise was conducted with aphasia clinicians and managers. In total, 265 clinicians and 53 managers (n = 318) from 25 countries participated in round 1. In round 1, participants responded to the open-ended question, "In your opinion, what are the most important outcomes (results) from aphasia treatment?" Responses were analysed using inductive content analysis. In rounds 2 and 3, 153 and 137 participants respectively rated the importance of each outcome generated in round 1 using a nine-point rating scale. Outcomes reaching predefined consensus criteria were further analysed using ICF coding. Outcomes and Results: Analysis of round 1 participant responses produced 1709 codes, which were condensed into 90 subcategories, 25 categories, and 4 themes. In rounds 2 and 3, a total of 51 outcomes reached consensus. The two outcomes with the highest levels of consensus both related to communication between the person with aphasia and their family/carers/significant others. Outcomes relating to people with aphasia most frequently linked to the ICF activity/participation component (52%), whilst outcomes relating to CONSENSUS ON APHASIA TREATMENT OUTCOMES 2 family/carers/significant others were evenly divided between the ICF activity/participation component (36%) and environmental factors (36%). Conclusions: Consensus was reached on 51 essential aphasia treatment outcomes. Very high levels of consensus (97-99%) between clinicians were achieved for outcomes relating to communication between the person with aphasia and their communication partner/s, suggesting that in the clinical environment improved dyadic communicative interaction is an important indicator of treatment success. The high proportion of outcomes linking to the ICF activity/participation component highlights the importance of measuring outcomes beyond impairment, both in clinical and research settings. These findings will be combined with other stakeholder perspectives and a systematic review of outcome measures to develop a COS for aphasia treatment research.

show abstract

Speech pathology services for people with aphasia: what is the current practice in Singapore?

Cited by 38 publications

References 55 publications

Clinician Survey on Speech Pathology Services for People with Aphasia in Hong Kong

Clinician Survey on Speech Pathology Services for People with Aphasia in Hong Kong

A Tutorial on Core Lexicon: Development, Use, and Application

Which treatment outcomes are most important to aphasia clinicians and managers? An international e-Delphi consensus study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About