Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32970784›Full record

Trial reportPloS one2020

A randomised trial of social support group intervention for people with aphasia: A Novel application of virtual reality.

Jane Marshall, Niamh Devane, Richard Talbot, Anna Caute, Madeline Cruice, Katerina Hilari, Gillian MacKenzie, Kimberley Maguire, Anita Patel, Abi Roper and 1 more

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03115268 (Delivering Group Support for People With Aphasia Through Eva Park), which is not on this map. Cited by 17 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
3.8field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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.

NCT03115268 nacompletednot on this map

Delivering Group Support for People With Aphasia Through Eva Park

TypeinterventionalSponsorCity, University of LondonRan2017 to 2019Enrolled32ConditionsAphasiaArmsSocial support groups delivered in EVA Park
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 58 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Virtual reality for stroke rehabilitation.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. A scoping review of patient and public involvement in empirical stroke research.International journal of stroke : official journal of the International Stroke Society · 2024
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
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

11 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Jane MarshallCentre for Language and Communication Science Research, City, University of London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-6589-221X
Niamh DevaneCentre for Language and Communication Science Research, City, University of London, London, United Kingdom.
Richard TalbotCentre for Language and Communication Science Research, City, University of London, London, United Kingdom.
Anna CauteCentre for Language and Communication Science Research, City, University of London, London, United Kingdom.
Madeline CruiceCentre for Language and Communication Science Research, City, University of London, London, United Kingdom.
Katerina HilariCentre for Language and Communication Science Research, City, University of London, London, United Kingdom.
Gillian MacKenzieCentre for Language and Communication Science Research, City, University of London, London, United Kingdom.
Kimberley MaguireCentre for Language and Communication Science Research, City, University of London, London, United Kingdom.
Anita PatelAnita Patel Health Economics Consulting Ltd, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom.
Abi RoperCentre for Language and Communication Science Research, City, University of London, London, United Kingdom.
Stephanie WilsonCentre for Human Computer Interaction Design, City, University of London, London, United Kingdom.
City, University of London · GBQueen Mary University of London · GBUniversity of Essex · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

About a third of strokes cause aphasia, or language loss, with profound consequences for the person's social participation and quality of life. These problems may be mitigated by group social support. But this intervention is not available to all individuals. This study investigated whether it is feasible to deliver group social support to people with aphasia via a multi-user, virtual reality platform. It also explored the indicative effects of intervention and the costs. Intervention aimed to promote wellbeing and communicative success. It enabled participants to form new social connections and share experiences of living with aphasia. It comprised 14 sessions delivered over 6 months and was led by community based co-ordinators and volunteers. Feasibility measures comprised: recruitment and retention rates, compliance with intervention and assessment of treatment fidelity. Effects of intervention were explored using a waitlist randomised controlled design, with outcome measures of wellbeing, communication, social connectedness and quality of life. Two intervention groups were randomised to an immediate condition and two were randomised to a delayed condition. The main analysis explored scores on the measures between two time points, between which those in the immediate condition had received intervention, but those in the delayed group had not (yet). A comprehensive approach to economic data collection ensured that all costs of treatment delivery were recorded. Feasibility findings showed that the recruitment target was met (N = 34) and 85.3% (29/34) of participants completed intervention. All groups ran the 14 sessions as planned, and participants attended a mean of 11.4 sessions (s.d. 2.8), which was 81.6% of the intended dose. Fidelity checking showed minimal drift from the manualised intervention. No significant change was observed on any of the outcome measures, although the study was not powered to detect these. Costs varied across the four groups, from £7,483 - £12,562 British Pounds Sterling ($10,972 - $18,419 US dollars), depending on travel costs, the relative contributions of volunteers and the number of hardware loans that were needed. The results suggest that a larger trial of remote group support, using virtual reality, would be merited. However the treatment content and regime, and the selection of outcome measures should be reviewed before conducting the trial. Trail registration: Study registered with ClinicalTrials.gov; Identifier: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/NCT03115268.

Indexed as

Social SupportVirtual RealityAdultAphasiaFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPsychotherapy, GroupStrokeStroke Rehabilitation

Identifiers

PMID32970784
PMCPMC7514104
OpenAlexW3089005585

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.