ArticlePloS one2017
What do people with aphasia want to be able to say? A content analysis of words identified as personally relevant by people with aphasia.
Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Efficacy of music-based telerehabilitation after stroke: protocol description of a randomised controlled trial.BMJ open · 2026Article
- Naming in a multilingual context: Norms for the ICMR-Manipal colour picture corpus in Kannada from the Indian context.Behavior research methods · 2024Article
- The Subjective Experience of Word-Finding Difficulties in People With Aphasia: A Thematic Analysis of Interview Data.American journal of speech-language pathology · 2022Article
- 'Better Conversations With Developmental Language Disorder': Designing a Novel Intervention for School-Aged Children and Their Main Carers.International journal of language & communication disordersReview
- Dubbing language-therapy CINEma-based in aphasia post-stroke (DULCINEA): A feasibility randomized crossover controlled trial.Digital healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWord finding is a common difficulty for people with aphasia. Targeting words that are relevant to the individual could maximise the usefulness and impact of word finding therapy.
aimsTo provide insights into words that people with aphasia perceive to be personally relevant. METHODS AND PROCEDURES: 100 people with aphasia were each asked to identify 100 words that would be particularly important for them to be able to say. Two speech and language therapist researchers conducted a quantitative content analysis of the words selected. The words were coded into a framework of topics and subtopics. The frequency with which different words and topics were selected was then calculated. OUTCOMES AND
results100 participants representing 20 areas of the United Kingdom ranged in age from 23 to 85 years. Word finding difficulties ranged from mild to severe. The sample of 9999 words selected for practice included 3095 different words in 27 topics. The majority of words selected (79.4%) were from the topics 'food and drink' (30.6%), 'nature and gardening' (10.3%), 'entertainment' (9.4%), 'places' (7.3%), 'people' (6.7%), 'house' (6.5%), 'clothes' (5.2%) and 'travel' (3.5%). The 100 words types chosen with the greatest frequency were identified. These account for 27 percent of the 9999 words chosen by the participants. DISCUSSION: Personally relevant vocabulary is unique to each individual and is likely to contain specific or specialist words for which material needs to be individually prepared. However there is some commonality in the words chosen by people with aphasia. This could inform pre-prepared materials for use in word finding therapy from which personally relevant words could be selected for practice.
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.