Trial reportBMJ open2016
Methodological issues in the design and evaluation of supported communication for aphasia training: a cluster-controlled feasibility study.
Trial report in BMJ open, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Implementation interventions to promote the uptake of evidence-based practices in stroke rehabilitation.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020Pooled it
- Supporting wellbeing through peer-befriending (SUPERB) for people with aphasia: A feasibility randomised controlled trial.Clinical rehabilitation · 2021Trial
- A Scoping Review of the Evidence on Disability Accommodations Targeting Equitable Communication Access in Health Care.American journal of speech-language pathology · 2025Article
- Implementation Science Research in Communication Sciences and Disorders: A Scoping Review.American journal of speech-language pathology · 2022Article
- Transcranial Direct-Current Stimulation as an Adjunct to Verb Network Strengthening Treatment in Post-stroke Chronic Aphasia: A Double-Blinded Randomized Feasibility Study.Frontiers in neurology · 2022Article
- Who said dialogue conversations are easy? The communication between communication vulnerable people and health-care professionals: A qualitative study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2018Article
- Communication partner training for aged-care workers: A scoping review.International journal of language & communication disordersArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the feasibility and acceptability of training stroke service staff to provide supported communication for people with moderate-severe aphasia in the acute phase; assess the suitability of outcome measures; collect data to inform sample size and Health Economic evaluation in a definitive trial.
designPhase II cluster-controlled, observer-blinded feasibility study. SETTINGS: In-patient stroke rehabilitation units in the UK matched for bed numbers and staffing were assigned to control and intervention conditions.
participants70 stroke rehabilitation staff from all professional groups, excluding doctors, were recruited. 20 patients with moderate-severe aphasia were recruited.
interventionSupported communication for aphasia training, adapted to the stroke unit context versus usual care. Training was supplemented by a staff learning log, refresher sessions and provision of communication resources.
main outcome measuresFeasibility of recruitment and acceptability of the intervention and of measures required to assess outcomes and Health Economic evaluation in a definitive trial. Staff outcomes: Measure of Support in Conversation; patient outcomes: Stroke and Aphasia Quality of Life Scale; Communicative Access Measure for Stroke; Therapy Outcome Measures for aphasia; EQ-5D-3L was used to assess health outcomes.
resultsFeasibility of staff recruitment was demonstrated. Training in the intervention was carried out with 28 staff and was found to be acceptable in qualitative reports. 20 patients consented to take part, 6 withdrew. 18 underwent all measures at baseline; 16 at discharge; and 14 at 6-month follow-up. Of 175 patients screened 71% were deemed to be ineligible, either lacking capacity or too unwell to participate. Poor completion rates impacted on assessment of patient outcomes. We were able to collect sufficient data at baseline, discharge and follow-up for economic evaluation.
conclusionsThe feasibility study informed components of the intervention and implementation in day-to-day practice. Modifications to the design are needed before a definitive cluster-randomised trial can be undertaken. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN37002304; Results.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.