Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30345067›Full record

ArticlePilot and feasibility studies2018

The 'Better Conversations with Primary Progressive Aphasia (BCPPA)' program for people with PPA (Primary Progressive Aphasia): protocol for a randomised controlled pilot study.

Anna Volkmer, Aimee Spector, Jason D Warren, Suzanne Beeke

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Pilot and feasibility studies, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 40 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Counseling and Care Partner Training in Primary Progressive Aphasia.Perspectives of the ASHA special interest groups · 2021
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. How Evidence-Based Practice (EAmerican journal of Alzheimer's disease and other dementias
    Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Anna Volkmer1Division of Psychology and Language Sciences, Language and Cognition, University College London, Chandler House, 2 Wakefield Street, London, WC1N 1PF UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4149-409X
Aimee Spector2Division of Psychology and Language Sciences, Department of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology, UCL, London, UK.
Jason D Warren3Department of Neurodegenerative Disease, Dementia Research Centre, UCL Institute of Neurology, London, UK.
Suzanne Beeke1Division of Psychology and Language Sciences, Language and Cognition, University College London, Chandler House, 2 Wakefield Street, London, WC1N 1PF UK.
Language Science (South Korea) · KRUK Dementia Research Institute · GB

Funding

Department of Health DRF-2015-08-182
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPrimary progressive aphasia is a language-led dementia, often associated with frontotemporal dementia. It presents as insidious deterioration of language skills (e.g. naming objects and understanding complex sentences), with relative sparing of cognitive skills initially. There is little research examining the effectiveness of communication skills training for primary progressive aphasia, yet speech and language therapists (SLTs) report regularly using this in clinical practice. 'Better Conversations with Primary Progressive Aphasia' has potential to reduce barriers and increase facilitators to conversation and consequently improve confidence in communication and quality of life for people living with primary progressive aphasia and their conversation partners. The aim of this pilot study is to examine the feasibility of running a trial of the 'Better Conversations with Primary Progressive Aphasia' intervention.

methodsA single blind, randomised controlled pilot study will recruit 42 participants with primary progressive aphasia and their conversation partners across seven UK National Health Service Trusts. Participants will be randomised on a 1:1 basis, stratified by site, to receive either the 'Better Conversations with Primary Progressive Aphasia' intervention (21 couples) or no speech and language therapy treatment (21 couples). Participants are recruited by SLTs who will conduct pre-intervention assessment (week 1) and deliver the intervention (weeks 2 to 5). Junior researchers, who are blinded to allocation, will complete post-intervention measures (week 6). SLTs complete 9 h of training to prepare them to deliver the intervention. The primary objective of the study is to establish for a phase III effectiveness study whether the program can be delivered as intended in a UK National Health Service setting. Specifically, it will establish (1) the acceptability of randomisation, (2) an assessment of treatment fidelity to determine necessary levels of SLT training, (3) the most appropriate primary outcome measure, (4) sample size requirements, (5) predicted patient recruitment and retention rates and (6) refined inclusion criteria. DISCUSSION: Insights from this study will be of relevance to guide development of future research and in particular, trials of therapeutic interventions in PPA, as well as for clinical care for this population.

trial registrationRetrospectively registered 28/02/2018 ISRCTN10148247.

Indexed as

Communication skills trainingConversationDementiaPrimary progressive aphasiaSpeech and language therapy

Identifiers

PMID30345067
PMCPMC6186039
OpenAlexW2897789439

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.